Longknife

I get that too, but I think the general attitude is "what do we have to lose?" Not to sound like an ass, but when I spoke out and said I don't think anyone values his opinions as he's seemingly undeniably bias, I got ignored by him until now. No offense, but I didn't miss a thing. I don't feel like I've missed out on ANYTHING by being ignored, or like I passed up opportunities at productive debate. Personally I'm less worried about it though because while I'm not blind to the hostility in this thread, I don't think (or at least I hope) anyone would take it personal or hold a grudge about it that carries on outside of this thread and this subject. To me, THAT would be harassment if that happened. What we see now isn't ideal, but I'm sure it'll calm down. It's just (understandably) kind of difficult to tell someone "hey your opinion is kinda worthless to me on this matter" without SOME degree of hostility. ;P But hey that's just my opinion and I get where you're coming from completely.

You made excellent points on why that Verge article isn't valid. I didn't have the strength for that and instead lashed out. I'm sorry. But do think Bruce will reply to your points? No. He will simply go silent for few pages and then come back when the next "gamers are dead" article is posted: "Oh, look! All those valid points this article is making." *Smiley face* I don't need him to reply. I'm pretty sure he read it, regardless of whether or not he acknowledges it. At the same time, let's say Bruce is objectively in the wrong here. Does it mean he can be lumped in with people doing harassment? It's that sort of behaviour that made this whole mess happen in the first place. Here's a good rule of thumb: If Leigh Alexander would do it, intelligent people shouldn't. I think his point was more that he's questioning Bruce's desire to actually have productive and open-minded debate while accusing everything Bruce says as being highly bias and meaningless. There is no consideration of right and wrong, there is no consideration one's own stance might be the wrong one or flawed in some way, there's only blind loyalty. And I'd be inclined to agree with this stance; hell, I may have invented it. I think I was the first to bluntly state there's nothing productive to be seen from debating with Bruce. While harassment shouldn't happen of course, I believe people are simply becoming frustrated and sick of it all. It's that sense and that attitude of....why do you keep coming here pretending to be interested in productive debate when in reality you only give opposing views a blanketed "excellent post" statement while otherwise ignoring them and focusing on things that promote your OWN agenda? Oh please, let's not act like we're not attacking a group as a whole here, Long. This post is completely transparent. So this thread has just devolved into a circle jerk about how dumb feminists are. Okay. I missed this pages back, but... What? Not quite understanding your point here. You saying I AM attacking all feminists with this? I clearly state "at least the ones who agree with that quote" in my post, and I meant it. If it's one lesson to take away from this, it's that feminism is by no means an organized ideology. Gamergate itself is proof of this, as it's an example of various feminists with various beliefs managing to fight and disagree with one another. That's why I almost always explicitly state "at least some" when referring to it, because I know plenty of self-proclaimed feminists who want nothing more than equal pay in jobs who don't deserve the negative attention that some of the more extreme ones do. And IF feminism as a collective adopts a negative connotation despite such little statements of clarification....? Kindly do not shift the blame to people like myself who simply respond to self-proclaimed feminists who say terrible things, and blame the people saying the terrible things.

"Hey everyone!! LOOK OVER THERE!!" Even if it were true, that does not absolve kotaku of guilt. It merely adds boogie and some others to the boycott list. And as stated, boogie was entirely transparent about it and warned about the deal before showing the game. That kotaku can't figure that out is pretty pathetic. Wow, someone else with Michael Jackson's syndrome! That's rare!

Careful dude. I bluntly told him I thought no one here takes him seriously one day and I'm pretty sure he's blocked me for it, as he hasn't acknowledged a post I've made since. Wouldn't that be just awful if you got blocked??? 1) That's ****ed up. 2) Is she new at this...? I'm pretty sure I've heard nothing good about the game development industry. Every single kid that grows up with no clue what to do with their life while also enjoying video games in their free time basically decides to become a game developer. The result is an absolutely packed industry where they often get worked to death and know damned well they need to keep up or there's about 20 people ready and in line to take their job. Ever see a tour of a game developer HQ and thought it looked pretty sweet cause they had a nice cafeteria, all sorts of video games and other stuff all at their workplace? Yeah...those are there because there are certain periods in a development cycle where they likely won't get to go home. I mean this is on par with if we complained there's not enough male nurses. What do I personally care and why would I insist a gender work a notoriously horrible job?

Congratulations, Bruce, you just reached a new level of hypocrisy. And that right there sums up nicely not everything, but a good part of what I hate about SJWs. "Hey guys, it's wrong to stereotype other people and put false labels on them. Hey, why are you getting mad because we stereotyped you and put false labels on you? Why are you bothered by this?" Wow you guys are really defensive, sorry I aske the question As usual my point is misunderstood, I'm not saying that white male gamers can't be insulted or offended by certain words. Of course we can, we are human beings. I am saying in this particular case why are you offended with being compared to ISIS. A white, male is so far from what ISIS is and how they operate its just seems ridiculous to get offended by that characterization Everyone be sure to call Bruce "Hitler" from now on and compare the context of his posts to that of Hitler's ramblings.

What does that even mean? Objectivity is viewing of the facts of the matter, subjectivity is opinion and things that cannot be proven. In law for example, a murder case would be examined in the objective sense and then in the subjective. The objective would deal with if a person was actually murdered by the accused, whereas the subjective would relate to his intent and if he truly meant to do it or if there's some other reasoning behind the objective facts. In a nutshell the quote is pure, 100% A-Grade madness because it's basically speaking out against....facts. Yes, you heard me correctly. Feminism - at least the portion that supports that quote - is literally attacking....facts.

I was joking dude. "Say that it began as a harassment campaign targeting a female indie developer, as reported by credible news sites" And that's where I stopped reading. Why? Because it's been pretty well documented that it was. Because it refers to websites like kotaku as "credible" and makes the argument all fallacy that the journalists must be right about things because they're journalists, when that clearly is NOT the case here. I'm not saying there weren't people who probably harassed her, but was she the main focus and interest? Are those websites truly credible? Hell no.

"Say that it began as a harassment campaign targeting a female indie developer, as reported by credible news sites" And that's where I stopped reading.

"Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well." God I hope that doesn't get recreated here.

http://youtu.be/fqmlffA9U9s

All hail the leader

Please don't confuse actual Russians with some loser pretending to be Russian. ...Implying russians aren't jerks? Wow where do you live and where do you import your russians from? And just for clarity I'm not hatin'. I got a love-hate relationship with Russians and the majority of my friends here are probably russian. Doesn't mean I can't acknowledge their negative traits though.

Citation needed It can be impossible to prove a negative. Burden of proof would be on anyone who doubts his claims to go find one.

Wait, there is scientific research that shows how abusing children yields positive results? Ah..that word. "Abuse" No, punishing a child isn't abuse (as long as it's kept to a reasonable minimum). Only idiots would think that a world without parental authority and a world that teaches kids that everything is negotiable is a good world. So no, the studies you mention wont' cover normal parenting, they will only take into account real abuse and use it as a blanket to push their agenda. To be fair, all research around spanking suggests it's absolutely horrible for children. Infact, interestingly my aunt apparently almost spanked me when I was 1 or 2 or maybe even 8 months old, and my mom flipped out on her. BOTH of my aunt's children ended up with some form of autism. Mind you I'm by no means implying spanking causes all autism, but I do recall encountering a study that linked them to some degree. Likewise I think my aunt is a particularly bad and drastic example. Point is merely that spanking is a terrible punishment that should be avoided at all costs and only used if everything else has been exhausted. My mom had a no spanking policy and resorted to it once when I was 4 or so, but it was just once and she didn't let it become some lazy standard "cuz easier."

Whuh? According to that link, Github closed the gamergate-repository proudly. Well, better not use that site for anything anymore. Is that photoshopped again or does that article really exist? Did a fast google sweep, couldn't find anything. Well then disregard all that, I suck ****. The first two things we look at from that reddit both appear false. GG.

Oh and apparently they really learned their lesson from this Intel thing, so that's nice too: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzEtPs8CIAAIFbu.jpg

Stumbled upon these guys at reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ Anyone knew about this? Thought reddit was a no-go for GamerGate.

It's simple: Zoe Quinn is a sociopath and/or pathological liar. I don't mean to sound prejudice here, but seeing her photo....well, it reminded me of a pathological liar I once knew. In a nutshell I would expect the entire story is fabricated, and Zoe is the type of person to need attention and approval. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if - quite ironically - her claims of setting off a doxxing of a site is absolute bull**** she spewed just to seem either connected and/or tech savvy. But all of this is besides the point anyways as the girl is largely irrelevant. All it potentially does is highlight how....warped these people are, but even that's a big stretch as it claims the entirety of the group must be equally as warped. I would say though that I avoid such people like the plague and the pathological liars I've met have been absolutely tossed out of society and lived as social outcasts, often laughed at for their ridiculous stories and how insanely unaware they were of everyone seeing through their bull**** as they stir stories that spread negative lies about others. That this community isn't doing the same with her, that I find a bit unordinary and odd. Guessing no one caught on.

Sure, do what you want and whatever you feel neccesary. You're the game dev geniuses, I'm just an opinionated guy who argues about stuff on the internet.

You don't get it. Make no mistake, Intel did indeed pull those ads due to GamerGate. Did it pull because they give a damned about the debate at all? No. Did it pull because the majority of consumers are with GamerGate and associating with an unpopular business is bad for their business? Absolutely. Intel's statement was driven by the exact same thing that always drives businesses: an interest in profit. They don't want bad rep from being known as sexist, nor do they want bad rep from not listening to the people of GamerGate. So what's the final result? They pull ads with a blanket statement about how they don't give two ****s about the debate, they care about consumer concern. AKA, they WILL listen to the people of GamerGate because they're larger, but that does not neccesarily mean they give a damned about the debate. And interestingly while feminists might see this as a victory cause they say "see, it had NOTHING to do with GamerGate" (idiots), journalists would be absolute idiots to view this as a victory, because this is Intel's excuse to continue NOT funding Gamasutra. They have no motivation to return to advertising on there if feminists gobble up that statement....which if we're to use you as an example, they certainly will. As I said, ultimately what this is is democracy. Companies will bow to the larger group, and the larger group is undeniably GamerGate. This is how GamerGate is forcing the hand of the situation and forcefully turning it into democracy and pulling it away from....whatever the **** this was when the journalists assigned motives and jobs to their own consumers and expected them to shut up while refusing to talk to us directly.

That would be absolutely tragic, if true. Someone going to prison for 10 years over this ****? Nah, no one deserves that. Somehow I doubt it's true though.

Yknow I have to confess, this whole thing has me looking at Indy games differently. Check this out: Looks cool, right? Right, but that's not what (eventually) caught my eye. While looking at the game, I came to find the storyline apparently involves a lesbian love story between the protagonist and one of the other characters. Likewise the lady who acted for the role ("acted") is apparently a lets player or something. This is no biggie except: A) If the game chose to have a lesbian romance and a female protagonist on its own accord, then it stands as evidence of the gaming industry not being sexist nor having something against female protagonists. Or B) If the game felt pressured into having a female protagonist with a lesbian love interest, then it highlights how groups like Silverstring media continue to hold power and influence over the Indy market. Just kinda hit me that regardless of the the reality of the situation, this whole ordeal has me "paranoid" in that I'm now seeing a female protagonist with a lesbian subplot - something I'd normally have no problem with - and now I'm "hostile" (in quotes cause I don't know the right wording of it) towards it in the sense I can't help but wonder why they chose that.

Evidence suggests he'll actually go "A+++++ troll. Would read again. Bye". Which at least isn't more sexist than the preceding paternalism was. Unconvinced of that, they appear to be perfectly capable of simply deciding that anyone who disagrees with them must be misguided, malign or misogynist and they certainly do stick to their guns, much as I sometimes wish they wouldn't. Many responses show no worry at all about what people think of them because they're already convinced they're right and those who disagree can safely be disregarded as being wrong. If you're comparing #GG people to ISIS you're not really worried about what people think of you, if you were you'd realise how ludicrous they'd find the comparison- even if it were intended as a joke. That's one of the reasons I compare the typical sjw types to a cult, they aren't even really concerned with what people/ gamers in general think of them but are far more concerned with adhering to their particular dogma and being accepted by their own group. Not a problem unique to sjws though, of course. Let me rephrase that... These people probably have no spine and really worry a lot about what people think of them morally. AKA, they worry about being viewed as a terrible person. Being told "ur not funny" or "ur ugly" may not phase them, but being told "ur racist" or "ur evil" does.

I would assume these are people who've never experienced typically innocent parties actually being guilty. For example, yes, I have met a racist black guy who could give racist white guys a run for their money. I have found a guy on youtube that was blatantly sexist (and in some ways racist towards his own race as he specifically applied tougher criticism to black women ONLY) but used the race card as a shield. I know damned well - being disabled myself - that some disabled people absolutely milk their disability for everything it's worth rather than using it appropriately. Hypothetical example: let's say a guy missing an arm uses a disabled parking space. That kind of attitude exists. But you often get taught about white privilege and to be mindful of it. While that DEFINITELY has truth to it, objectivity is boss. Being able to recognize a case of racism as racist or a case of race-baiting as race-baiting is key, and ultimately you need to review the facts and take a stance YOU yourself can be proud of, and you need to develop the skill of being able to be truthful with yourself. What I mean by that is yes, I would agree there are probably gamergate members who truly are misogynists but flock to the cause because it's an excuse for them, but when they rationalize it in their minds, they never realize it's merely an excuse. I simply don't focus on these guys because I believe them to be in the vast minority, because as it's been stated, all data suggests younger generations are less likely to be sexist, racist or discriminatory. I believe these are people who never learned to stop caring what other people think. These are people who can be sent in full retreat by the mere accusation of prejudice from someone they respect. Minor example: I myself might think to ask "why is it racist to refer to a black person's hair as nappy." I would say that not in the sense that omg I'm dying to say that word OR that I would disagree that that one radio host who said "nappy headed hoes" was racist or that despite being objectively innocent in meaning the word could've developed a negative or insensitive connotation, but in the sense that I find it quite odd that merely acknowledging someone's hair style based largely on their genetics has become racist. Some people would immediately call me racist just for questioning it. I'm sorry but no, I don't feel I'm racist for asking that question. On the flip side just in the interest of stressing objectivity being key, when I was in high school there was a petition to do away with a Black History Assembly presentation and corresponding school dance where the black students automatically got to organize everything instead of the elected school council. The petition argued that it seems to diminish equality and highlight our differences simply by giving them an event other students (asians, women, whites, etc) do not receive. Reasonable no? ....And I might've signed, except for this VERY strong and VERY disgusting feeling I got from the people supporting it. It seemed clear to me that was a case of the argument of equality and fairness being a convenient excuse for truly racist people. Some of them, it was merely a gut feeling. Others? You'd find that a classroom that lacked black students would discuss the dance in a rather tactless way, insisting there'd be nothing but crappy rap music and no "GOOD OLE FASHION COUNTRY" music played, while also referring to the reason we'd probably hear rap being due to the music being chosen by the "Nigers." (pronounced like the country) Yes, those are obvious, but with others it was a gut feeling. And a pretty good gut feeling too; if there's a CLASSROOM with some people saying racist things as others sit by and seem fine with it, then there's probably more racism than realized, no? In the end it felt like....yknow wtf do we care. It's a ****ing dance, and the black students truly enjoyed it, so why should we rain on their parade? ****, let's go the other way and petition to have an asian run dance or whatever just as an excuse for more fun and more assemblies we skip classes for. In the end it felt spiteful and just disgustingly racist, and luckily the petition amounted to nothing.So yes, point is objectivity goes both ways. But ultimately I feel like these are people who care too much what other people think, so the moment you call them misogynists, they'll do backflips and handstands for you on command to prove they're not. They defer to anything a woman says to prove otherwise, so if a woman is dismissing the countless minorities supporting gamergate as fake accounts or the like, AND IF YOU DISAGREE THEN YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST, then you better believe some guys fall in line. Don't believe people can be that weak and lack that much of a spine to value their own gut opinion? I wish I could agree, but I had the misfortune of meeting my German grandfather, who never had a spine of his own and PROBABLY ended up in the Nazi army that way. For him, he's devoid of responsibility so long as he's the "middle man" and the intent he follows is that of someone else. Sadly I'm not exaggerating when I say Person A could tell him Person B is a horrible person and he'd agree, but the moment Person B is alone with Person A and can try to tell him that's not how it is, he'll side with Person B....before Person A gets a hold of him again and switches his view back. But yeah, tl;dr these people probably have no spine and really worry a lot about what people think of them, so the idea of being accused of being racist or sexist scares them ****less, and just like that they end up as shields for anyone who figures this out. Want bonus points or a night of entertainment? Get a girl (one that's undeniably female and can verify she's not a fake account) to accuse a male journalist making such accusations of being sexist himself and how this is all a convenient excuse for him to try and control and dictate what she thinks, wants and likes. I'll bet money he'll go "ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE" as he struggles to figure out how to not be accused of sexism. Main deterrent to this is that, from what I've seen from feminists, they tend to have statements like "oh she's obviously so accustomed to misogyny she's become a part of their system" or whatever ready for such situations, so might be more likely he'd spew one of those lines instead of going "ERROR."

Stopped reading there, did not click link. Inb4 hipster comments about how we're all sheeple who "just don't get it." If you want a serious and productive discussion, it might be in your best interest to not come off as an untolerable and pretentious little bastard.