Longknife

Gawker ****-shamed Christine o'Donell: https://archive.today/0WXs3 For anyone who still thinks GamerGate is about misogyny and a hate of women: Congratulations, you're a ****ing idiot. EDIT: And just do want to clarify that yes, this article is dated. Someone dug it up trying to highlight hypocrisy within the media.

I'm going to write a book called "Anti-GamerGate: The Strawman Argument" because I'm beginning to believe I could become a millionaire by betting the next word out of an Anti-GG's mouth will be a Strawman. No one ever said they're not allowed to critique. They can critique all they wish, but what they get paid for critiquing will depend highly on how valuable people find their critique. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority are not in favor of their critiques or find them valuable. Gamers (as a collective) care about gameplay first, storyline second and other little mechanics like controls, graphics and music third. What sites like Polygon offer is critiques that are a distant....well it's difficult to even call it a forth, because morality isn't exactly in high demand for good gameplay. Take for example that Christian website that has a gameplay rating and a morality rating. Nobody has a problem with them because they clearly seperate the two to say "yes this game is good, but if you're a conservative christian who hates scandidly clad women, don't buy this." What's cool is that theoretically, an Athiest could find use out of their website because an Athiest could ignore the morality ratings entirely and focus on how they rated the gameplay. Polygon on the other hand mixes the two and wishes to downscore and upscore games with a decent relation to their subjective moral views. As such, they would essentially be guiding and dictating the moral compass of gamers because they refuse to let us know how much the "morality" of a game played into it's finalized score. We cannot read a review on Bayonetta and say "it got a 7.9 but 2 points were taken off for morality issues, so since I don't care about it this game is near perfect." No, they purposefully keep us in the dark to try and dissuade us from playing games they don't agree with ideologically. All that's asked is transparency, and again a natural occurance of the free market is that the groups that make the critiques most people argee with will win out. Clearly, people don't agree with Polygon so much. But nobody's saying they're not allowed to criticize or voice their views, they're just not allowed to preach theirs as the word of God or mislead us into essentially adopting their ideologies ourselves. Essentially what's going on is the idealist SJWs are crying that they don't have the adherence and reverence for their opinions that they desire. "Tough ****" is the response.

Shock but these groups are not mutually exclusive. It's quite amusing that the "Gamer Gate" side believes itself to be representing some mythological "true gamer" who scorns the tyranny of social-justice and feminism. But you know "ethics in game journalism" or whatever. Now who said GamerGate represents "true gamers?" Can you quote that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with a gamer who enjoys the same games SJWs enjoy and want to see made. If the majority of the market wishes to see such games, then it will be so. There is something incredibly entitled though about wishing to go against the natural order of the free market and influence things to try and make one niche group of games gain popularity and influence, as well as the amount of devs interested in making such games. This is exactly what's being attempted by the feminists in this conflict, and let's of course not forget that the feminist-gamer conflict is nothing compared to the journalist-reader conflict, where journalists basically just want to be able to take bribes and boss us around and write whatever they want and still get paid. The free market functions much like Darwin's rules of natural selection. It's natural and occurs whether you like it or not, and nothing can be done about it. Trying to go against the "will" of natural selection or the free market is absolute nonsense, and this is exactly what's going on here. Mark my words, this is a clear and easy victory for GamerGate, it's just slightly hard to tell by the staggeringly high volume of propaganda they're slinging about. Still, all this amounts to is....it's as if the media were to claim Argentina won the World cup and almost every news outlet on earth seems to be congratulating Argentina, but we all watched the game and we all saw Germany win it. They can confuse and lie all they like, but even if they succeeded in tricking everyone into believing Argentina won, Germany still physically holds the prize. They cannot change the truth. Here, with GamerGate, they're trying to change the truth that the gaming media is corrupt and that the market as a collective is sick of "sexist" concepts like how Bayonetta looks. But regardless of what they say and regardless of how many non-gamers they convince of this, gamers are STILL boycotting those websites, advertisers are still abandoning ship and Bayonetta is still selling quite well. It doesn't matter how many journalists, school teachers or doctors they convince they are right, it matters what the gamers - the consumers - actually collectively think and what their collective opinion amounts to. The SJW and journalist side of things...They'll scream and scream and scream about how they're right until they lack the funds to broadcast their lies anymore, whereas developers for games like Bayonetta will find their pockets quite full. That's simply reality. That's not propaganda, that's not a bias spin on the story, that's reality. They're going to lose this battle for the simple fact the free market is rigged against them; we are their lifeline in that we put food on their table by being their consumers, and we lost all interest in doing so. Meanwhile they lack any means with which to retaliate and do the same to us. It's an army with a full stomache at all times vs. a starving one. It was over before it started, no matter how loud and convincing the starving army may seem.

https://archive.today/TYVSW Guys video games are going to cease to exist because we refuse to read opinionated articles about them.

I have to say; I don't like that mike guy. I think it's not a good idea to let those who doxx get away with it. I'll be honest and say I kinda think he's bluffing about taking legal action. I wish he weren't, simply because a legal case of a GGer being doxxed by an anti-GGer would be very hard for the media to avoid covering.

https://mobile.twitter.com/idlediletante/status/526108118493581312 So apparently Mike is offering hat his doxxer apologize and all little legal kerfuffle be avoided as a result, and that's the response. I lol'ed pretty hard at "you can tweet it like a normal person." No offense but I don't have a very high opinion of people who are on twitter all day.

Only thing that concerns me about those graphs is that Grayson has significantly less tweets about him and he's a male. In reality, Wu has the most and you could put two and two together and find a correlation between how active the person is on twitter and how many tweets there are about them as Wu is by no means as infamous as Anita or Zoe, yet has the most tweets. Yeah, because she appears to live on twitter and does stupid sh** to provoke reactions, either intentionally or unintentionally. Meanwhile Grayson to my knowledge is all but practically completely inactive on twitter since this all started. This also explains why Zoe and Leigh have less tweets about them because Leigh doesn't twitter much either and Zoe TRIES to stay out of it, whereas Anita occassionally makes a provocational tweet and Wu is...well, still an idiot. Still I'm sure they'll read it and argue Grayson is neglected on twitter because he's a man and therefore is never attacked. Unfortunately I dare so there may be a degree of truth to it as it's only natural there must be SOME genuine misogynists latching to the movement as an excuse for their hate, but I fear the degree to which this exists will be drastically exaggerated. Focus will go towards the fact Leigh and Zoe are tweeted more than Grayson and Stephen, not to the fact that all four have drastically less tweets than Kotaku, a figurehead name that can represent all four.

https://archive.today/0sKjE What the F-? EDIT: http://archive.today/E7igo That's a Newsweek reporter. What the HELL happened while I was playing TF2...? EDITTASTIC: TYT doing a livestream discussing GamerGate. Currently still going. I just tuned in but seems to actually be listening to the real issues and reactions are positive.

On a more light-hearted note, I happened across a video by some feminists trying to make a point by sexually objectifying men. You may be thinking "I'm a man and I don't mind being objectified. I kinda like it when women catcall me or comment on my sweet ass." Yep, me too. But it's not just objectifying men, it's also the gayest video I've ever seen. TRIGGER WARNING!!!! This video is gay as ****. And I don't mean that in a "gays r stupid" hateful way, I mean that in a "good luck achieving an erection within the next two weeks as a straight male" sort of way. I'm sharing it so that I don't have to be the only soul unfortunate enough to have clicked it:

Are you implying you try to stay in the know about serial killers? Funny thing is I googled "craziest women in history" or something just to try and find a counter-point to Anita's broad statement about men and mass shootings. I was looking for anything: most notorious torturer, most notorious liar, traitor...you name it. Anything considered bad that I could say "SEE DAT MEANS ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS" and highlight how flawed her statement is. Was NOT expecting the two most notorious serial killers in human history to both be women. Monvoison even has an ideology to her: So yeah, that was easier than I expected. EDIT: Hell, check Giulia Tofana too! LOLWTF WHY WAS THIS SO EASY?

Now here's something that deserves views: https://medium.com/@aquapendulum/reality-check-supplement-reading-for-historyofgamergate-com-graysons-relationships-308dc510c680 I think GG tends to get off-track focusing on the dumb **** Anita says. Don't get me wrong, I clarified myself last thread that I was caught up in the fascination of it all too; we're all guilty of it and I'm more than happy to join in and speculate on why these people say terrible things, I just think we should mind how much we focus on it as this stuff is more of a hobby with trying to understand the human psyche rather than actually trying to get stuff done. I also think feminism is effectively the shield of anti-GG and pulls focus away from the real issues. Honestly, for example Anita's recent comment....who cares? Yes it's disgusting that she chose this timing to make the comment, but SADLY that's not uncommon within the industry; politicians and news organizations like MSNBC or Fox News are hella guilty of the same, she's just playing the same game. To call her out on it...? Feels more political, as we'd conveniently call out our opponents on drastic remarks rather than our own supporters. And as Gorgon said (think it was him), she's not exactly wrong in the claims. Let's not kid ourselves, the two genders aren't equal and are prone to different faults, with physical aggression being more common amongst males. If that still doesn't sit well with you and you feel her comments are still wrong somehow, I think this tweet sums up what's wrong about it. It's attributing the actions of few to an entire gender, as if to imply these things would never happen without men, or that all men are capable of these atrocities. By that same logic we can claim all women are serial killers because Elizabeth Bathory and Catherine Monvoisin did just a crackerjack job at that, curbstomping the record victims of their male counterparts to be two of the most notorious serial killers in human history. (No, I'm not exaggerating. Look this up and you'll find these two top the charts for highest count of possible victims, going as high as potentially having killed 650 and 2500 people respectively, higher than any other serial killer in history, and both are women. TIME TO NEVER TRUST ANY WOMAN EVER AGAIN SINCE THEY'RE ALL SERIAL KILLERS, AMIRITE?) But the above? It's on point and it's on topic. It's a little shaky in some regards, such as how the very people he was investigating conveniently seemed to erase their twitter and facebook history so some evidence is now restricted to screencaps, but regardless, this is the kind of thing that needs to be looked into, this is the kind of thing that people need to be asking questions about and really pushing, and this is the type of thing we should ultimately be focused on.

...Cringe is also an unpleasant feeling. xD Though you do bring up another point, in that there do seem to be sounds that naturally relax people aswell. Typically the sound of rushing water seems to classify as this.

Like I said it doesn't really do anything, but it is rather humorous to see a year old article so accurately summarize the culture we're seeing now. Also tells me to avoid /pol/ (as if I'd planned on going there), so that's useful.

https://archive.today/BzOlM This isn't exactly relevant, per se, but still pretty funny to see. That article pre-dates Gamergate and is completely detached from the inner circles of the gaming community. It was a theory paper written about nationalistic europeans and feminists and how their little sub-cultures on the internet function. It's pretty funny to draw parallels between the feminism we see here and the feminism covered in that article. It's also pretty funny to see communications academics actually analyze and categorize their common tactics. Yknow we often discuss it like "WELL THATS JUST UR OPINION," but here they are stating it all so matter-of-factly as if observing some wild tribe and their social structure, considering the very things we're encountering as typical in their "society."

Just to clarify... "Cringe" is an actual physical reaction guys. Like you get goosebumps, grit your teeth, bite your lip, or something else like that. Some of you are obviously making jokes, others seem to just be naming sounds you hate, but not neccesarily ones that provoke an unexplainable physical reaction.

Well, as I've said, I've encountered crappier writing in published books. I'm not really sure gaming journalists have ever given significant coverage to Depression Quest, the game, as opposed to Quinn, the harrassed game developer. Point is they're scraping the bottle of the barrel for excuses, and yes the game got name dropped by journalists who allegedly slept with the girl. The narrative is "this is an attack on female game developers" with her as the staple example, but calling Zoe Quinn a game developer (or Brianna Wu for that matter) is like calling Jack Nicholson an NBA All-Star. It's an "erm...I guess?" sort of reaction, and while that in and of itself is innocent enough, to see that function as the foundation of much of anti-GG's arguments is nothing short of ridiculous. It's on par with titling a news story as "Man attacks Las Angeles Lakers in brutal assault" when the reality is some guy slapped Jack Nicholson for saying something he didn't appreciate.

I'm not sure in which camp would you place Depression Quest. ...The amount of defense and name-dropping she gets is more related to the amount of harrassment she receives than to the qualities of her game. What you're saying sounds suspiciously like "oh, her game was crap, therefore she deserves to be targeted with harrassment due to her sex life", the underlying logic of which I simply can't process. The latter group of course. And no, I'm saying that....well, not to repeat myself, but in my attempt to understand both sides, I imagined Depression Quest must have good artistic merit, but bad gameplay mechanics, therefore the reason GG and Anti-GG disagree on it. Then I found out it's pretty damned bad. Then my theory fell through. Then it was "wow ok gaming industry must be pretty bias to have given this coverage AT ALL. Moreso than I thought previously."

Was that thing an actual quote? Nope, i made it up. But i like that it still managed to give people a benefit of doubt. //EDIT: Are people trying to attack the self-employed lawyer guy? How dumb can you be? The guy is clearly riding on the GG-thing with his own agenda and they still fall for it? Oh well, time to bring the popcorn then. It's interesting regardless what happens because basically he suspects Zoe Quinn (or a friend of hers) and is claiming to have taken this to the FBI, who are now investigating. In other words it's a high stakes game now and we'll see results regardless of what they may be. If I had to guess, it's because you've probably felt how utterly ridiculous the stance "I've experienced depression in a way that doesn't map to the game's depiction, therefore the game's depiction is wrong" is Mind you, there is nothing wrong with the first part of the statement - depression is a multi-faceted thing, and I'm pretty sure no two people experience it in completely the same way -, but when you're concluding that everybody else who doesn't feel the same isn't really depressed, it comes across as pretty damn arrogant. Nope, but as someone who sometimes translates stuff for a living, I can tell you with supreme confidence that I've seen worse writing even from published authors, so I guess it's fit for the purpose of a video game. Yes, I would. Partially because video games as an artistic medium are (or should be) all about communicating their message through game mechanics, which is something Depression Quest does, and partially because it's essentially a "choose your adventure"-thingy, a genre which had a renaissance on handheld consoles a few years ago or something like that - if those are (were?) being sold as games, why shouldn't this be? I translate for a living too and I'm honestly confused what that has to do with terrible writing. I wouldn't compare "poorly written due to grammatical errors and lack of knowledge of the language" to "poorly written because sucky writer." Overall my point was that the amount of defense and name-dropping for this girl seems highly disproportionate and therefore bias given how it's highly debateable if the "game" is even a game, if the "game" is even good, and if the "game" even qualifies as a video game. Even if you answer yes to all of that, it's still questionable why a major gaming journalist would give this coverage AT ALL, and at the very least highlights a clear gap between the gamers and the people representing them as the gamer sentiment towards this game is astoundingly negative.

Games don't need to be fun. Also, "being punished for making obviously terrible choices in the game's context" =/= "game's completely unplayable and commands are totally random". My issues with Depression quest basically boil down to the terrible writing. It boils down to how it's not a little statement about how your girlfriend offers you sex, and yet for whatever reason, you just can't get in the mood and that makes you feel awful. No, it's worded as "why would you want to have sex with me? I just can't believe anyone could love a person like me or wanna do that with me....I'm not in the mood anyways." (Seriously, go play it, this is essentially how it was written with the snippet about loving a person like me being directly quoted) It's soooooo melodramatic and exaggerated that it feels disingenuine to the issue, which to me, hurts the issue of depression rather than helping it. The entire thing feels like a literal pity party rather than a well-written or decent overview of depression. For example on that note, the way she presents the issue with sex seems to imply it's a constant rather than an on and off thing, as well as implying a person with depression wouldn't want sex because they want to fish for compliments instead; that's hardly easy to sympathize with, nor is it true. A simple "not in the mood" while explaining you've no idea why you're not would've sufficed, but her melodramatic overtones seem to pollute the entire story and turn it into this giant pity party; I reacted pretty funny when I came across the parts with "don't say anything, you don't want to burden them with your problems" cause I hadn't expected something accurate and simple in explanation to the typical tone of hers which would've sounded something like "don't say anything. Horrible people like you don't DESERVE to have their problems talked about." But yeah, it's really that simple: the writing is terrible. I was expecting....I commonly believe that people are just as logical and capable of reasoning as you are. May sound simple, but people deem their opposition waaaaaay too often; they don't try to imagine themselves in the other person's shoes and instead give lazy labels like "well obviously they're pure evil." Well, how did I put myself in their shoes....? Up until now, I'd imagined that the anti-GG side might be this avant grade sort of art fanatics club. I was picturing depression quest as a "game" devoid of game mechanics, but strong in narrative. I remember when I first heard it was what the girl was known for, I sympathized, cause I do think depression is something worth writing about. But I'm sorry, that was pathetic. Pathetic both in the writing quality and in the fact that it isn't in fact a video game. I'm pretty sure I could make a "game" like that, as could any of us. So to see that anti-GG defends stuff like that...? Basically my theory of "oh these guys just value artistic messages over gameplay, that's not so bad but I can see how this has created a rift in the industry" fell through completely. Now it's more "oh these guys are a bunch of children circle-jerking and enjoying decent paying jobs with limited responsibility, and they're coming to her aid and defense not because it's warranted but because she's their friend and their bias is showing." Dude, the stuff you're criticizing pretty much maps to exact quotes I've heard from multiple friends being treated with depression. I mean, it's okay to voice criticism, but what you're doing now is denying their experiences as invalid. Which brings us to the question: if the writing accurately depicts how some people who suffer from depression think, is it horrible for being melodramatic? Depressed people sometimes tend to be melodramatic. I was pretty melodramatic when I was a depressed teen (although I suppose that had more to do with me being a teen than with the depression). (On the other hand, my friends in question are in their 20s-30s, so depression might have had something to do with it. It's a mystery!) How did I know this claim of "you can't invalidate their experience" was coming? Let's try to discuss this another way since I fear that would lead to a "no I'm not - yes you are" discussion: Would you consider that game to be a great work of art or exceptionally well written? I wouldn't, because the writing is still very weak, completely devoid of character development or other basic aspects, and many of the details often end up feeling irrelevant in the big picture of things. You might rebuttal that that's just my opinion and not law or fact, but what I'm trying to argue is that I find it exceedingly unlikely that anyone just LOVED this "game" and felt it deserved a name drop, yet it got some, conveniently from friends of hers in the industry. Likewise, would you consider this a video game? I wouldn't, because as I stated, this kind of thing has long qualified as a book. He'll come to think of it, do you happen to know the youtuber Jerma985? Does team fortress 2 videos. He did a video titled "so I'm writing a book" and the type of book he's writing? Choose your own adventure. What Zoe made would hardly be considered a "video game" rather than a book according to society. And yet despite those two points, she's advertised as a game developer and her game got some name drops from gaming journalists. That to me screams bias. That's my point. At the end of the day I don't care if you think it's well written or poorly written. My point is I was expecting something worth writing home about, and it doesn't seem to qualify as such even if you liked it. And even if it does, it still hardly qualifies as a video game.

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this: http://i.imgur.com/cm1tfI4.png

As I'm aware. As most people who've been depressed and have looked into it would be. My issues with Depression quest basically boil down to the terrible writing. It boils down to how it's not a little statement about how your girlfriend offers you sex, and yet for whatever reason, you just can't get in the mood and that makes you feel awful. No, it's worded as "why would you want to have sex with me? I just can't believe anyone could love a person like me or wanna do that with me....I'm not in the mood anyways." (Seriously, go play it, this is essentially how it was written with the snippet about loving a person like me being directly quoted) It's soooooo melodramatic and exaggerated that it feels disingenuine to the issue, which to me, hurts the issue of depression rather than helping it. The entire thing feels like a literal pity party rather than a well-written or decent overview of depression. For example on that note, the way she presents the issue with sex seems to imply it's a constant rather than an on and off thing, as well as implying a person with depression wouldn't want sex because they want to fish for compliments instead; that's hardly easy to sympathize with, nor is it true. A simple "not in the mood" while explaining you've no idea why you're not would've sufficed, but her melodramatic overtones seem to pollute the entire story and turn it into this giant pity party; I reacted pretty funny when I came across the parts with "don't say anything, you don't want to burden them with your problems" cause I hadn't expected something accurate and simple in explanation to the typical tone of hers which would've sounded something like "don't say anything. Horrible people like you don't DESERVE to have their problems talked about." But yeah, it's really that simple: the writing is terrible. I was expecting....I commonly believe that people are just as logical and capable of reasoning as you are. May sound simple, but people deem their opposition waaaaaay too often; they don't try to imagine themselves in the other person's shoes and instead give lazy labels like "well obviously they're pure evil." Well, how did I put myself in their shoes....? Up until now, I'd imagined that the anti-GG side might be this avant grade sort of art fanatics club. I was picturing depression quest as a "game" devoid of game mechanics, but strong in narrative. I remember when I first heard it was what the girl was known for, I sympathized, cause I do think depression is something worth writing about. But I'm sorry, that was pathetic. Pathetic both in the writing quality and in the fact that it isn't in fact a video game. I'm pretty sure I could make a "game" like that, as could any of us. So to see that anti-GG defends stuff like that...? Basically my theory of "oh these guys just value artistic messages over gameplay, that's not so bad but I can see how this has created a rift in the industry" fell through completely. Now it's more "oh these guys are a bunch of children circle-jerking and enjoying decent paying jobs with limited responsibility, and they're coming to her aid and defense not because it's warranted but because she's their friend and their bias is showing."

Then you're better off saying nothing, really. If the only reason you're posting is to... make you feel good or stroke your ego or make someone else feel bad- and you admit it- then you should really consider not posting, and if you do don't expect everyone to react well. Also... Well, no, you aren't. If you're going to decide who is 'productive' and try to run off anyone deemed non productive then you definitely aren't always open to discussion, you're sometimes open but sometimes just want to yell instead- basically, exactly what the loud faction of SJWs love to do by using all the labels you find annoying. I've never had any particular problem with Bryy or aluminumO3 or Enoch to think that discussing something with them is pointless, even if I accept there's little realistic chance to change minds. If you're overly antagonistic even that small chance is gone. I think everyone understands the impulse to vent unproductively and most people will do so one time or another, but it really isn't a good look. Two things: 1) When did I say this was about stroking my ego or feeling good about myself? This is about moving forward. This is about discussing things that carry weight and are relevant. You want to make some kind of anti-GG point? Discuss how you feel things relating to Anita's terrible tweets does nothing to stop bad journalism. Discuss how you don't like some of the comments on kotakuinaction or elsewhere suddenly lumping Felicia Day into this broad anti-GG category just because she was on the fence. Beating the same dead horse about harassment never was and never will be productive from an Anti-GG perspective. As I said before, if you WISH to discuss the harassment....? Provide a viable working plan on how to possibly stop it altogether, THEN you're free to complain all you like that people aren't doing enough. 2) When on earth did I mention aluminum or Enoch? I never did, because I have no problem with those two. This isn't about attacking anti-GG opinions, it's about running off people with no interest in productive debate who've proven themselves to have a clear bias and agenda making them incapable of admitting when they're wrong. And I have no problem with those two because unlike Bryy, they don't come in here and beat the same dead horse before conveniently disappearing when counter arguments are made I've probably linked articles and then later apologized after discovering the info in the article was misleading maybe twice now. Why? Because I don't discuss the topic at hand with an interest in "winning" for the sake of winning, I discuss the topic at hand because I care about the issues. I'm hardly attacking every person who comes in here. Hell, I've already spoken out to the two people I wanted to, there aren't any others (at least not on the anti-GG side, as stated it seems like needless drama to call out the pro-GG ones since they don't hold the same ability to derail a discussion; unfair yes, but also true). I've got no interest in policing the damned thread or the discussion with my own subjective opinion. Why did I speak up? Because it's GOTTEN to that point of ridiculousness, where I can't imagine anyone in their right mind supporting or defending a guy who blatantly dodges every counter argument or refuses to provide his own argument, but will gladly repeatedly drop by to re-voice the same criticism over and over without ever allowing that criticism to be questioned or scrutinized. I've already asked if you think anything would've come from Bryy's posts, the answer was about on par with a resounding "maybe...if the planets align." Sorry, but I don't see purpose in letting EVERYONE have their periodical say just in the interest of appearing nice or open-minded. There's nothing about what I just did that wasn't open-minded; I would've been more than happy to be proven wrong, it just didn't happen. I also think it's a losing battle to try and ignore any frustrations with users like this. Think back: a thread or two ago the entire thread was dog piling another user for also posting unproductive and bias posts while refusing to answer opposition. My involvement? I had none beyond asserting an "I told you so" of sorts as it ended. And back then, again we had people defending the person as the thread turned into "what's ok for us to do." And again it's nothing personal. I don't have any personal issue with anyone here, because wtf it's just one discussion on one issue. There's no reason for it to be personal. But in the interest of moving the discussion forward....? Yes, if someone isn't providing jack all towards that, let's tell them. Sometimes the truth hurts, but lying about it or avoiding that fact won't actually change the truth. I essentially answered this already. I would both doubt the severity to which this occurs (would consider it more of a paranoid worry and "what if" rather than something that happens frequently) while also holding little respect for someone who would read - for example - the discussion between me and Bryy a few pages back and come to the conclusion "well, I'm going to side with anti-GG because this one singular GGer who made claims that turned out to be true and logical had a very mean tone as he made those points!" If that's how you make decisions, I don't exactly consider you a valuable asset to the discussion anyways. I value the people who can do research themselves, who can think objectively and who aren't so easily swayed by emotion. Hell let's be real here: the majority of GGs opposition exists BECAUSE people are swayed by emotion and not by facts. They hear "sexism" and grab their sword and start swinging in every direction rather than asking "where and how?" A question that, were they to ask, they'd find has a rather pathetic answer.

Yeah apparently an ancestor of mine got eaten by styrofoam packaging. In all seriousness though I looked it up before posting this and all I got from it is that psychologists know it's "something very primitive" going on in our brains and what regions are responsible. The why of it - at least in articles I read - was never listed or hypothesized on. Predatory sounds certainly isn't outrageous though, but there's some holes in that too like why don't cringe noises inadvertently give you a dose of adrenaline if that's the case. (Or maybe those aren't holes. I'm no neuroscientist)

I go overboard because it seems necessary, no?They keep coming back. And they keep coming back with terrible arguments that they can't even properly defend. So let's make them realize you won't be heard or taken seriously unless you can defend your claims. I'll be blunt (as I often am) and say that no, I held no hopes Bryy would ever offer productive discussion. His recent actions and responses to how confrontational I was prove it to me, personally. So tell me, why should we NOT be as aggressive as I was just now? What do we - as a collective in the interest of moving forward and discussing matters as productively as possible (stress on "as possible" seeing as we're a humble forum discussion with no power in this) - have to lose from the attitude I just exhibited and proposed utilizing? I've no interest in driving away PRODUCTIVE SJWs who can have an objective debate....it's just unfortunate they seem like an endangered species. But driving off the ones who do nothing productive and make ridiculous hypocritical claims or only chime in when there's info or an event that supports their side? Yes, you better believe I wanna run these people off. It's nothing personal, I just find their commentary extremely distracting, disingenuous and unproductive. It's like if GamerGate were a ten step process before it ends (regardless of succeeding or fail) certain people INSIST on obsessing over step one. Why? Because it suits their agenda. No, **** that. We discussed step one to death, and even IF Bryy were to somehow prove that every GamerGate supporter is a mysoginist and a bully and every bad word in the world, gawker, gamasutra and others are still losing advertisers rapidly. (Colgate left today, btw, if it wasn't mentioned) The debate is moving forward regardless of what they wish to obsess on, simply because we're seeing the effects of GamerGate be set in motion. I want to discuss the hear and now, not last month. But yeah, I'm always open to discussion. Give me a good reason why you think my tone was counter-productive just now and I'll gladly stop and apologize. As for now though....? All I heard was a "well maybe if the planets aligned and you were nicer, he might've listened a little bit." Well damn, I better bend over backwards to try and make that happen and constantly welcome his nonsensical claims while avoiding the urge to highlight the logical fallacies of his claims, huh? Wouldn't wanna squander our chances of a miracle! I know it can be frustrating, specially when it seems that things are going against you and you don't have a chance to defend yourself. Just remember this; you're trying to sway public opinion, people who don't have a bone to pick on this fight and are going to be more receptive of your tone specially if it doesn't fit with the opposing narrative. This is a conflict of attrition, the major news outlets are going to move on to the next story. We won't. For those that are unaware of it; Mike Cernovich is a lawyer who has spoken in support of Eron and GG. He was doxxed by anti GG and has been swatted as a result as well as other incidents. Now there are going to be criminal charges brought against the people involved, apparently. See, I disagree with this. One of the labels attributed to the SJW side of things is "professional victim." Apparently there's some merit to that as this would be the second time (out of two times) where I got up in a SJW member's grill and they refused to counter a point on the grounds of my tone. I need not get into detail I assume, but I'm sure you all recall what happened comparatively when someone wasn't AS aggressive as I was just now, but still pointed out a fallacy or someone dodging the question: nothing came of it. Nothing came of it except time and effort was wasted on an issue besides the main focal point entirely. And right now, nothing is coming of this except an internal debate about tone. Let's say for arguments sake the idea that SJWs have a professional victim complex isn't theory, but fact. For arguments sake they are like this. You give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You tweet "I hope you die," they turn it into "RAMPANT MISOGYNY IN THE INDUSTRY." Why give these people an inch? You give them an inch, and you're giving them a platform and a stage with which to claim you hurt "muh feelins" and thus you and the movement you represent are tantamount to terrorism. Then what happens? Then we spend WEEKS on the stand in a virtual court of law testifying that we're not INFACT terrorists....except the judge is rigged. The jury is rigged. Regardless of what we do, AT BEST we're proven "not as bad as previously thought but still bad." This is NONSENSE. We're not supposed to be on trial. THEY are. This is about journalism and about how we've not only got a bunch of gaming journalists coordinating and working together to try and stomp down the very people they serve, we've now got mainstream journalists buying into it as well. This is about how there's this weird little clique in the middle of it who has an interest in helping those corrupt journalists because those corrupt journalists are willing to peddle their "politically correct" messages in an industry where such things are largely irrelevant. Every ****ing time someone like Bryy comes in here, what happens? Is anything productive said? No, go back and check yourself. There was a post subtlety hinting and calling attention to how convenient it is that while GamerGate claims to condemn such harassment, it does nothing to stop it. And when a question comes up "how do you propose to actually stop it," SUDDENLY HE HAS SOMEWHERE HE REALLY NEEDS TO BE! How convenient! This isn't productive, this isn't helpful. This is derailment. You can see it for yourself now in that as stated, today Colgate pulled ads and yet here we are focused on if my tone is acceptable. The bitter irony is that.....much of the criticism from the SJW side of things is along the context of "you guys are insensitive jerks," and when we try to prove them wrong by being extra extra sensitive and open minded, being extra polite and hearing them out....? THEIR DERAILMENT TACTICS ARE THAT MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE. Why? Because it ends up being a discussion about whether we're jerks or not, and not about the actual issues at hand. Now I'm not all knowing. I personally believe had we never worried about what they think of us, we could've gotten to where we are now (their message crumbling, advertisers pulling support left and right) faster, but I could be wrong. Maybe we did need that period of showing we super super super sensitive to get where we are now, maybe we didn't. Regardless...why continue now? We know what happens if we play into that game. And if we don't? If we act like jerks when someone fails to provide an argument and back it up? Then the people providing the faulty arguments leave in a fit of emotion.....darn? Honestly who cares, they weren't bringing anything to the table. I've been here before with half a group ranting about my tone as the other says nothing or supports it. The result is always the same: it weeds out the people who brought nothing to the table, because for them, they can't admit to being wrong. For them, my tone is a convenient excuse to leave while still entertaining delusions they're not wrong. It's an excuse to flee a losing battle with some pride in tact. Personally I think facts and logic trumps emotion on issues like this. Eventually, regardless of how we act, the truth will shine through. But as for me personally? No, I don't see the value or what we stand to gain (at least not at this stage of things) by being super super sensitive and giving a podium to speak from to people who we've already established to be incapable of backing up their arguments or providing productive debate. And just as basic clarification, again, I'm not saying let's dog pile any SJW that comes in here. No, I'm saying why NOT dog pile the users who can't back up their arguments or offer productive debate; we literally have nothing to lose. For the record there's GG supporters in this thread too who's comments I find rather useless and always skip over. Only reason I'm not calling them out is because theirs rarely (if ever) derail the conversation, because fortunately for them we can more easily ignore them and continue the discussion, and while I would gladly name these people in the interest of fairness, it seems like unnecessary drama...sadly, it's not nearly as easy to continue when our OPPONENT in a debate insists on useless comments.

I'm really curious as to why feminists seem to have their own exclusive urban dictionary wtf? https://mobile.twitter.com/femfreq/status/525350371125100545 Likewise follow the link and watch the video. What is it with the Anita's inner circle and obsessively posing as professors/teachers giving lectures? Lastly, THE HELL IS GOIN ON WITH THAT PUPPET'S NECK?