Longknife

I also love how you seem to have missed me pointing out that the intent you mention completely hinges on their side being too stupid and/or blind to realize that they hold no power to make said intent into reality. According to who? Hence my analogy. You may say "oh Stephen Hawking wants to murder someone? No worries, he holds no power or capacity to do so" and dismiss it as case closed, I say "LOLNO we've got a problem that needs to be addressed." I don't mean this to sound rude, but didn't you just get here and vaguely know of the details involved...? Yes, I would call it coercion based on what I've seen. Whether it be coordinated articles from gaming journalists seemingly at the beck and call of Silverstring media, Zoe Quinn's treatment and handling of the people at TFYC, or the multiple game developers who've stated - personally or anonymously - that they fear for their jobs and their positions should they speak out. And again as clarity: I don't think these people (referring to Silverstring media or the SJW side of things) have bad intentions. Nobody has bad intentions, and evil is - in many ways - a myth. People seek to help, not to destroy. But the problem is that while their intentions are good, there seems to be this attitude of "it's ok, they'll thank us when it's over and we've won and they've seen the light" that's driving all this. Particularly, with the exact same legal line I quoted defining coercion, I think this one is why gamergate is continuing on: That's the debate, that's what drives this conflict. One side is saying social equality is a duty of the people and attempting to force it to be standard, the other side is saying such "responsibilities" - while well-meaning - ultimately lead to censorship of art and other such problems, all of this only being made worse by the fact that an already undeniably corrupt journalism industry is supporting this movement. Ultimately, as I've stated, you would have a VERY difficult time arguing that the agenda run by Silverstring media is the agenda the majority of gamers support, simply because GamerGate exists. FFS take the SJW to Gamer ratio in this thread as a sample. But those very people are purporting to act in our name in some way, or saying that we deserve punishment for misbehavior or what-have-you, and the result is we've basically got coercion with the "no we're helping them" scapegoat allowing it to continue.

Just so we're clear, even the SJW's themselves call themselves that. Hell, I think they coined the term. It's not a word with negative connotation assigned to them. And strawman is only a buzzword in that it's occured REPEATEDLY throughout this entire event. Hell, you could daresay it's the core of the issue and why the issue persists: people are pissed off about being falsely represented by their own media. You make a statement about censorship of art or corrupt journalism, then the next morning headlines read "an undying misogynistic hatred for women!!!"

I'll sing you Don't Stop Believin' by Journey to return the favor from the Kickstarter if you want, Chris.

Except I've never said you were saying that, I've just pointed out that freedom of speech also includes freedom to criticize, and the criticized party isn't bereft of their freedom of speech due to said criticism. If that wasn't clear, I apologize. "You're wrong!! I made a highly irrelevant point that no one had called into question whatsoever and responded with such FOR NO APPARENT REASON! How DARE you accuse me of making a strawman argument! I was merely taking the opportunity to make an irrelevant point!!" Yknow it's VERY difficult to sympathize with the SJW side of things when I've yet to find a single person in support of that side capable of objective debate... Your entire post is just you repeating the same "mistakes" I was criticizing. All while repeating "it's not coercion cause they won't succeed" while completely failing to address that the intent is indeed there. The intent is the exact cause for concern and outrage...Likewise you claim they don't have the capacity to be coercive when I myself provided an example and licketysplit provided several more.

Nobody in this thread has a problem with criticism. But coercion is something different.

Where are you people getting that I have a problem with her voicing her opinion? I never stated that. I have a problem when her opinion unjustly holds a disproportional amount of influence over gaming media and the gaming industry. The very fact we're HAVING this GamerGate backlash suggests it's not the popular opinion. For better or worse, that's how it is, and you cannot force a group of people to like things you do and think the way you do. Please guys, I don't think these strawman arguments (criticiizing a flaw in an argument your opponent never made instead of attacking the ones they did) are intentional, but it's very hard to get ANYWHERE when I feel I'm not even being properly heard or responded to. Look, it's not a strawman to point out she doesn't really have a power to force her opinions on you, therefore complaints about her forcing her opinions on you are either misguided, or indeed pointing at the fact that your problem lies in her being able to voice her opinion. ..... Let's walk through this, one step at a time, shall we? Please, I urge you to think things through one step at a time: 1) The accused strawman argument was NOT about Sarkeesian trying to influence people, it was about you guys perceiving that I'm saying she and others have no right to provide criticism and voice opinions. They have EVERY right to do so. That you perceived that I said they don't hold this right? THAT is the strawman, NOT her forcing opinions on others.....that you accused me of the latter is yet another strawman, ironically.... 2) To argue that "she (and others) do not have the power now and therefore it's fine" is absolute INSANITY when there is a crystal-clear intent to change that, improve on that power to do so and expand influence. This would be tantamount to if you said it's fine that Stephen Hawking intends to murder me in cold blood because he is not physically capable of doing so. No, it's NOT fine because a man having the intent to commit a crime may eventually find the means to do so, and criminal or (in this specific case with gamergate) immoral actions should be discouraged by the community. When you gain influence within the community to control a disproportionate amount of the media and game development sectors given the relative unpopularity of your opinion, and then that opinion is made stronger by a mailing list of journalists who attend to your every call, all while providing social pressure and harassment to get things the way you want them to be, that's coercion. And believe it or not, coercion is a crime punishable by law: Mind you, no, I'm not saying anything they're doing here is totally illegal and going to get them in trouble, but what I'm saying is that if you utilize the very same tool that could get - say - a banker or an economist arrested, then yes, it's time to rethink your methodology. Also as minor clarification, Anita is someone I view as the face of the SJW movement. She herself is not neccesarily guilty of any of this (we don't know), I simply name her as a placeholder of sorts; she's a symbol.

Where are you people getting that I have a problem with her voicing her opinion? I never stated that. I have a problem when her opinion unjustly holds a disproportional amount of influence over gaming media and the gaming industry. The very fact we're HAVING this GamerGate backlash suggests it's not the popular opinion. For better or worse, that's how it is, and you cannot force a group of people to like things you do and think the way you do. Please guys, I don't think these strawman arguments (criticiizing a flaw in an argument your opponent never made instead of attacking the ones they did) are intentional, but it's very hard to get ANYWHERE when I feel I'm not even being properly heard or responded to. LOL R WE SRS RIGHT NOW???? "Collaborated effort to murder a man that ultimately fails is hardly what I'd call murder." There's a reason attempts at crime are also a crime. Here we're not talking actual court orders and crime, mind you, but yes the community has a VERY reasonable reason to be skeptical and wary of this particular group, because it's obvious the attempt is being made.

Freedom of speech includes a freedom to tell others you think their work doesn't match your worldview, and you doing so doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech. .....Right, and they have the freedom to not listen to you and not be persecuted or unjustly have a collaberated media backfire occur that doesn't even represent the majority opinion of the people, all just for having an opinion that differs from yours and not acting on your criticism. The point is you can't dictate others. I've said this a thousand times in the course of the thread. I named a very appropriate example of a guy asking EA to include disabled Sims in the next Sims game: he can ask and request, but he cannot demand or dictate. The name of the game and the big issue is coercion. There's a very obvious attempt to coerce the video game industry into meeting a certain agenda. As for anything regarding Zoe Quinn, I know nothing about the girl beyond any relevance she has in corruption, nor do I know about her game or it's reception. NEVER did I state Sarkeesian is not allowed to provide criticism in a manner such as her videos, I spoke out against coercion.

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action. The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political. And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air. And you are trusted with tender minds? So if a game depicts stuff in accordance with your worldview, it's just the way things should be, but if others complain that it doesn't fit their worldview, they're horrible political people? No, this is the issue: Anita Sarkeesian has a video suggesting a video game plot idea. It's nothing fancy and in all reality has probably been done before, but it's fine. Basically it's a princess gets kidnapped, gets sick of waiting on the knight in shining armor to save her, so she busts out and saves the kingdom herself. Is that a good game idea? Sure. Nothing wrong with it, so why not? There's absolutely no issue with the games they're suggesting. The problem is there's absolutely nothing wrong with the games they're criticizing either. These are games, not political ads. So the best case scenario would be if the SJWs made games that appealed to them while all companies and their respective developers were allowed to make any game they choose without a need or pressure to cave into political pressure to include certain themes or messages. To take your message directly, a game matching my worldview is fine, a game NOT matching my worldview is also fine (I mean basically ANY fantasy game takes a lot of world views and blows them out of the water), but when a developer of either category A (matching my view) or category B (not matching) tries to insist, coerce and force the other developer into matching their own personal style, THEN we have a problem. That stagnates and censors art, even if that is not the intention.

I was on my phone, and quoting on a phone is a pain. I was actually referring to a post of yours on the previous page. My apologies for the lack of clarity. When the media can all coordinate reviews to reflect negatively on a product because they didn't have an appropriate female character you start precedence for it in the future. Speaking of which, wasn't there some huge backlash on Tomodachi Life for not including gay marriages? I found that EXCEEDINGLY odd considering it's Nintendo and they, yknow, typically have kid customers, so including such a feature is potentially going against what their consumer base would want. Likewise as a game mechanic, how the hell would you determine which Miis are gay? When I heard that one I just found it to be the weirdest **** ever. Targeting the Sims or something for not including it, sure, but Tomodachi Life....? It's a goofy game made for goofy fun, not for a political message.... But looking back on it now, it makes sense WHY it got targeted for that. I bet we could look up articles on the subject right now and find the typical "offenders" aka the people in that group and those that coordinate info. I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place? And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it? That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger. Just to put things in perspective, THIS is the game that got **** for not being politically active enough:

I was on my phone, and quoting on a phone is a pain. I was actually referring to a post of yours on the previous page. My apologies for the lack of clarity. When the media can all coordinate reviews to reflect negatively on a product because they didn't have an appropriate female character you start precedence for it in the future. Speaking of which, wasn't there some huge backlash on Tomodachi Life for not including gay marriages? I found that EXCEEDINGLY odd considering it's Nintendo and they, yknow, typically have kid customers, so including such a feature is potentially going against what their consumer base would want. Likewise as a game mechanic, how the hell would you determine which Miis are gay? When I heard that one I just found it to be the weirdest **** ever. Targeting the Sims or something for not including it, sure, but Tomodachi Life....? It's a goofy game made for goofy fun, not for a political message.... But looking back on it now, it makes sense WHY it got targeted for that. I bet we could look up articles on the subject right now and find the typical "offenders" aka the people in that group and those that coordinate info.

And more importantly, has never been on the table. Just putting it out before we forget it. It is and it isn't. If I recall correctly there was something about the design premise or company structure of TFYC that Zoe Quinn considered transphobic and was demanding change. Something about the company or game was to be focused on women exclusively and did not wish to touch the issue of man-gone-woman-via-operation and thus said women only, and they flipped. It's not something that's been explicitly stated, but it is something that - via pressure - they're trying to achieve. The overall sense is that when WOULDN'T they pressure a developer into including this many women or this many black guys or whatever, if given free reign? That's my point, overall it's good intentioned but when you allow it to run wild, there WILL be games and stories where the genders, races and orientations of characters involved is actually important to the overall story, and thus such censorship needlessly trivializes and creates work for the artistic message.

Nevermind that. I consider censorship of art to be tantamount to censorship of free speech. To me, more than anything this is about defending art. It's about the corrupt video game industry too, but that's easy enough to respond to: don't go reading kotaku articles or gaming journalism sites in general. Never needed them, never will. But this idea that we need to meet quotas or criteria for all games and storylines, while certainly good-intentioned, is a devil in disguise.

Honestly dude, what planet do you live on? I'm not looking at it like "lost" and "won" like "cmon guys let's beat them at gamergate!!!" I'm saying that what that quote is saying is on par with "we cannot allow the Germans to bring such atrocities such as genocide into the world. Because of the sheer dangers this, I hereby order the extermination of all Germans." It's a self-defeating stance. It's not "we sure showed them," it's that they went about it the wrong way before the issue even began. You're interpreting the "they've already lost" as me viewing this as a competition. No, I'm saying they've got a self-defeating stance based on that quote. Secondly....again, what planet do you live on? Let me be very very brutally honest with you: you have one of the least credible opinions on this forum. You know why I say that? Because nothing in my post you quoted mentions 4chan, nothing mentions exclusivity in games, nothing mentions anything you're talking about. My response was, plain and simple: if she thinks we should change the perceived culture of harassment within the gaming industry, that's a fair point EVERYONE would get behind 100%, but unfortunately we've already lost that battle in that the very side claiming to be anti-harassment is equally as guilty of harassment, so no one has set a good example or done anything to actually change the culture and thus this entire clash is moot and should cease, IF her stance is truly the stance of the SJW side. Go back to the drawing board and think of something else once the tension has died down. The fact that you seem to spew out the same talking points in response to everyone, regardless of what they say? People are not listening to you, and NOT because "omg how dare Bruce spew the SJW message here!" No, people aren't listening because it seems blatantly obvious your opinion cannot and will not change, and half of what's said goes in one ear and out the other. You're doing a horrendous job of representing a group that's being labeled as zealous and quasi-religious in their moral code beliefs. If you truly want to actually discuss things, please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately. If I see a convo go down like this: "Peanut butter and jelly sure is delicious" "I agree and I wish 4chan would realize this and stop trying to stagnate the gaming community with their misogynistic DDoS and harassment techniques" Then f*** yes I'm gonna be an ass to you because nothing pisses me off more than seeing someone lie to themselves and basically pretend to be interested in productive discussion where everyone's willing to be proven right OR WRONG for the sake of and in the interest of general progress for the community as a whole. Finally, against my better judgement I'll ask how on EARTH do you figure that "never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase?" Says who? According to what statistics? The only example I can name of a game with the deliberate intent of bringing more equality to the table is The Fine Young Capitalists, which as we all know was ultimately supported by the GamerGate side and nearly snuffed by Silverstring media. And even if that WERE the case that we saw an increase in games being made for everyone, there's question about how that came to happen. Allegedly it could occur via coercion, intimidation and censorship. And no, I think you'll find that many of us hold the stance of "Artistic Integrity > Equality" and would NOT be ok with this if it came at the cost of (or could potentially come at the cost of) stagnating and limiting artistic expression, so again even if that were the case, many of us would potentially be very unhappy with it. No one gives a flying **** about equality in video games. They care about gameplay. If you want equality, you can kindly bring it up and request it to the developers you like when they develop games, and they'll possibly consider it. I once helped a guy ask EA to include disabled people in the next Sims game. Did they do it? No. Am I gonna cry and piss and moan about it for all eternity? WTF no they have another focus, that being GAMEPLAY. I merely spoke up to say "hey EA, this is me acknowledging that yes my demographic does exist and play your games," but they're not f***ing required to meet some quota or some crap. Same goes for every minority group ever, and if you have a problem with games that aren't socially friendly, vote with your wallet. No need to use profanity, we are trying to have a mature debate without feeling the need to insult each other. And just so you don't say "what planet are you living on "...you claimed I must " please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately" and you have petulantly decided to use the f**k several times in your post . Using offensive words doesn't make you sound more emphatic or clever My advice is you should learn "to read your own posts and respond to them accordingly " . You again have used the word " lost " which means someone has "won " or can "win" To quote you again " but unfortunately we've already lost that battle"....notice the usage of the word "lost ". As I said there is no "lost " and no " won ", there is only suggested and expected change coming to the gaming industry. And then you ask " what changes around inclusivity have come to the gaming industry ". I clearly stated this which you conveniently ignored. Companies like Bioware and Obsidian already have male, female, gay and non-white characters that you can interact with. So the statistics are right in front of you if you bothered to actually see how games like RPG have changed just in the last 5 years Also you say "people don't care about equality in games"...this must be one of most bizarre points I've ever heard. Just because you don't care or think there will be any effective change that doesn't mean others don't care. The whole root cause of this Anita and Zoe furore is based on a need for inclusivity And finally this will be last time I respond to you, I am tired of people who are incapable of having a debate without feeling the need to insult others. Grow up and learn to debate like an adult So many things to say to this, from you blatantly missing the point to blatantly not responding to some of my points and instead spending the post trying to throw Oxford's dictionary at me over some nitpicky crap instead of...yknow, reply? All I'll say is guess how many congressmen there are who get in one heated debate and then say "I refuse to debate with you ever again!!" Zero. I've given you a number of respectful posts that you've enjoyed, but apparently all of that is now moot because omg I called you out on some bull**** once. Bitterly ironic here is that in that sense I'd dare say your response is not that of an adult. Was I aggressive, hell yes I was. You know why? Because it was crystal ****ing clear you didn't read a damned thing about my post and were just interested in repeating your argument. At this point I question if you're aware of very basic facts revolving the issue, for example would you even know who kirottu's avatar is supposed to be... (nobody ruin this, let's see if he gets it) But it's no matter, because honestly if this is how you respond - both in your emotional reaction and in how you fixated your response on reading Oxford's dictionary when some common sense would've sufficed - then I dare say you're not exactly capable of productive debate. You certainly haven't proven it thusfar. And once again, bitterly ironic: you're handling the scenario EXACTLY as the SJW side has been handling it, which is possibly -THE- most highly criticized part about their end of things, AKA they do not justify their actions. They focus not on what was said but how it was said, they do not respond to criticisms, they do not acknowledge good actions on behalf of the other side (such as the fact TFYC is by THEIR definition a step in the right direction and Gamergate supporters funded that, or even in other ways, such as Anita not praising New Vegas on equality but degrading it to another cog in her wheel of oppression by misleadingly presenting it as inheritly misogynistic), they don't do ANYTHING productive. They lecture, nothing more. They're incapable of anything BUT lectures. And the moment "omg I got a boo-boo cause someone called me a nasty name," it's never "ok but it's time to pick myself back up and keep fighting," it's "NOW TO USE THIS BOO BOO AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO JUSTIFY MY ACTIONS FOR ALL ETERNITY!! :D" If that's how you "debate," then good riddance in my opinion. You shant be missed. The very problem with this is that if this were their stance and their argument, then they've already lost by having people on their side partaking in the very same actions. It'd require leading by example, which clearly isn't happening. Not neccesarily by guilt of the person you've quoted, but merely by people sharing her opinions who could NOT manage to be "above it all" when it came to the bickering. Or maybe this is a convenient excuse used by people who were determined to dismiss the other side anyways. Asking the other side to behave in a manner you are unwilling to is a fundamentally dishonest thing. Also, how exactly is "you are guilty by association, therefore I don't have to listen to you" a different stance from "Gamergate is an organized harrassment campaign, and whoever says otherwise is either lying or has been duped"? No, because she suggested changing a culture. You know how a culture works? Monkey see, monkey do. In parts of the USA, Coca Cola gets referred to as "pop," in others it doesn't. In various parts of every country you'll find various different accents. And the practices you see in southern Germany will not neccesarily be repeated in the north. It's all because of culture. So if a rapper for example were to say "hey, I do not like the heavy usage of swear words in our genre of music and think something should be done about it," then yes it would be a terriawful idea for him himself to engage in heavy swearing in his music. You lead by example and you set an example. You release a popular rap song, don't swear, and then hope it catches on. Maybe for example you'd sell better cause you're more kid friendly, you'd suddenly be one of the most famous rap names out there, and then viola others are following your game plan in the interest of money. There's nothing "hypocritical" here because that quote is a female developer basically stating "this movement is happening and neccesary because the current culture is toxic and needs to change." Changing it by silencing every voice you don't agree with? That's madness, that's oppression. Changing it by example? By releasing a game where online trash talking and harassment can get you banned, and where the title is all-inclusive? You set an example. There's no hypocrisy going on here because the gaming community never claimed interest in changing that culture. It's merely incredibly sound advice that if you want ACTUAL change in that regard, be ready to set a good example. There's nothing unreasonable there whatsoever. And as I said, if that's their cause then they (as a collective that she's being treated as a part of whether she likes it or not. Sorry, that's not my doing, that's just the reality of the situation, and the reality harming BOTH sides) are truly handling it in a self-defeating way by utilizing the EXACT culture that they wish to fix. You cannot fight fire with fire when it comes to culture. Guess what happens: you get more fire. On a sidenote, want to know something you'll hear from both psychologists and lawyers alike (at times)? Stop pointing the finger. Psychologists will say don't obsess and point out the flaws of your debate partner because that heats things up; use sentences with "I" rather than with "you." Lawyers? Lawyers look at it more objectively, namely, even if you prove someone's a hypocrite, that does not prove that their claims hold no merit. So in this case even if you considered it hypocritical of me to suggest what I suggested above, you've said nothing to disprove that it is indeed sound advice. Just so we're clear, that's Tyrone. He gets paid to make messages for people:

Honestly dude, what planet do you live on? I'm not looking at it like "lost" and "won" like "cmon guys let's beat them at gamergate!!!" I'm saying that what that quote is saying is on par with "we cannot allow the Germans to bring such atrocities such as genocide into the world. Because of the sheer dangers this, I hereby order the extermination of all Germans." It's a self-defeating stance. It's not "we sure showed them," it's that they went about it the wrong way before the issue even began. You're interpreting the "they've already lost" as me viewing this as a competition. No, I'm saying they've got a self-defeating stance based on that quote. Secondly....again, what planet do you live on? Let me be very very brutally honest with you: you have one of the least credible opinions on this forum. You know why I say that? Because nothing in my post you quoted mentions 4chan, nothing mentions exclusivity in games, nothing mentions anything you're talking about. My response was, plain and simple: if she thinks we should change the perceived culture of harassment within the gaming industry, that's a fair point EVERYONE would get behind 100%, but unfortunately we've already lost that battle in that the very side claiming to be anti-harassment is equally as guilty of harassment, so no one has set a good example or done anything to actually change the culture and thus this entire clash is moot and should cease, IF her stance is truly the stance of the SJW side. Go back to the drawing board and think of something else once the tension has died down. The fact that you seem to spew out the same talking points in response to everyone, regardless of what they say? People are not listening to you, and NOT because "omg how dare Bruce spew the SJW message here!" No, people aren't listening because it seems blatantly obvious your opinion cannot and will not change, and half of what's said goes in one ear and out the other. You're doing a horrendous job of representing a group that's being labeled as zealous and quasi-religious in their moral code beliefs. If you truly want to actually discuss things, please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately. If I see a convo go down like this: "Peanut butter and jelly sure is delicious" "I agree and I wish 4chan would realize this and stop trying to stagnate the gaming community with their misogynistic DDoS and harassment techniques" Then f*** yes I'm gonna be an ass to you because nothing pisses me off more than seeing someone lie to themselves and basically pretend to be interested in productive discussion where everyone's willing to be proven right OR WRONG for the sake of and in the interest of general progress for the community as a whole. Finally, against my better judgement I'll ask how on EARTH do you figure that "never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase?" Says who? According to what statistics? The only example I can name of a game with the deliberate intent of bringing more equality to the table is The Fine Young Capitalists, which as we all know was ultimately supported by the GamerGate side and nearly snuffed by Silverstring media. And even if that WERE the case that we saw an increase in games being made for everyone, there's question about how that came to happen. Allegedly it could occur via coercion, intimidation and censorship. And no, I think you'll find that many of us hold the stance of "Artistic Integrity > Equality" and would NOT be ok with this if it came at the cost of (or could potentially come at the cost of) stagnating and limiting artistic expression, so again even if that were the case, many of us would potentially be very unhappy with it. No one gives a flying **** about equality in video games. They care about gameplay. If you want equality, you can kindly bring it up and request it to the developers you like when they develop games, and they'll possibly consider it. I once helped a guy ask EA to include disabled people in the next Sims game. Did they do it? No. Am I gonna cry and piss and moan about it for all eternity? WTF no they have another focus, that being GAMEPLAY. I merely spoke up to say "hey EA, this is me acknowledging that yes my demographic does exist and play your games," but they're not f***ing required to meet some quota or some crap. Same goes for every minority group ever, and if you have a problem with games that aren't socially friendly, vote with your wallet.

The very problem with this is that if this were their stance and their argument, then they've already lost by having people on their side partaking in the very same actions. It'd require leading by example, which clearly isn't happening. Not neccesarily by guilt of the person you've quoted, but merely by people sharing her opinions who could NOT manage to be "above it all" when it came to the bickering.

I like how I call for productive discussion AND THEN THE THREAD DIES.

The other way around. They are hypocrites. Let me get this straight. Anti-GG spokespeople get harrassed. They respond to this by collectively calling GG-ers abusive backwards cavemen or something. GG-ers brush this off and get their pitchforks. The sight of pitchforks awakens atavistic impulses in certain elements of anti-GGers, who start to harrass GG-ers. GG-ers collectively call anti-GG-ers bad names, and when they do the exact same thing GG-ers have done a few days ago when faced with name-calling based on the actions of a deranged few, it's a proof of their inferiority and lack of moral backbone? He's merely asking you to put yourself in their shoes. AKA.... GG supporters allegedly took part in harassment. SJW asked them to stop the harassment. The harassment continues to occur off and on, but the collective group claims to not condone the actions. SJW supporters allegedly took part in harassment. GG asked them to stop the harassment. ?????? The point is either: A) Why haven't they publicly stated they don't condone or support the actions? It's radio silence on their end. or in my opinion more importantly B) You'll find yourself responding with "how the HELL do you expect me to stop a bunch of strangers on the internet who happen to hold the same stance as me from taking part in harassment? I can't and I can't be held responsible for them." Grats, neither can we. That's the point, that's the message. Weird, I thought this was the message: (Snark aside, your post is well-argued and completely reasonable. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not the sentiment he's expressed.) Then how about both sides drop it? I'm just saying, you guys are ALL basically nitpicking now. It's all "you argued incorrectly because of THIS!" rather than any actual discussion about the subject matter at hand. If any of you believe someone is incapable of productive debate or whatever, kindly ignore them and move on. Cause yeah watching this thread from the sidelines for the last page or so....? Not a DAMNED thing of value has been said, just finger pointing and nitpicking.

The other way around. They are hypocrites. Let me get this straight. Anti-GG spokespeople get harrassed. They respond to this by collectively calling GG-ers abusive backwards cavemen or something. GG-ers brush this off and get their pitchforks. The sight of pitchforks awakens atavistic impulses in certain elements of anti-GGers, who start to harrass GG-ers. GG-ers collectively call anti-GG-ers bad names, and when they do the exact same thing GG-ers have done a few days ago when faced with name-calling based on the actions of a deranged few, it's a proof of their inferiority and lack of moral backbone? He's merely asking you to put yourself in their shoes. AKA.... GG supporters allegedly took part in harassment. SJW asked them to stop the harassment. The harassment continues to occur off and on, but the collective group claims to not condone the actions. SJW supporters allegedly took part in harassment. GG asked them to stop the harassment. ?????? The point is either: A) Why haven't they publicly stated they don't condone or support the actions? It's radio silence on their end. or in my opinion more importantly B) You'll find yourself responding with "how the HELL do you expect me to stop a bunch of strangers on the internet who happen to hold the same stance as me from taking part in harassment? I can't and I can't be held responsible for them." Grats, neither can we. That's the point, that's the message. It's a message stating that bringing up and discussing the few who take part in harassment is unproductive. You or Bruce or Batman or Jesus H. Christ himself will not get ANYWHERE coming to this obscure corner of the internet - the Obsidian forums - and asking us to answer in the name of the harassers. We can't, because we simply don't know who they are or how to stop them. Most we CAN do is make it known publicly that such actions are not condoned, but that's it. I'm sure it's exactly the same for you. I think the overall message is that if harassment were completely ignored and looked over since we can't do anything to stop it from either side and instead we focused on productive discussion and debate, it would hurt gaming journalists the most. It's simple: gaming journalists have a job and customers. They have to appeal to their customers to keep that job. If allegations are made that they did this or that poorly or they are corrupt, and they cannot properly respond to those allegations, it hurts them. If everyone remains distracted by something else though so that they're never asked to own up to certain actions or even try to provide a response....? Well, that's just hunky-dorey for them now isn't it? And hell, it IS even plausible there are perfectly reasonable explanations to be heard on behalf of several accused parties. In that sense it would be in THEIR best interests to respond, so as to seperate themselves from the bad egg that is guilty and not be tossed into the same group that the more hardcore members of GG will boycott out of sheer principle and skepticism. In the end, productive debate and discussion is what we need, and finger-pointing at a bunch of nameless anonymous harassers that neither side can name or stop is not productive. So let's stop, shall we?

In my opinion it's that very lack of communication that's allowing this to fester and continue. Nobody's speaking their minds, nobody says what they want and thus the conflict continues as everyone probes everyone else for information. Mind you I'm not saying it's Obsidian's responsibility to fix that, I simply mean I kinda disagree with many of the comments here saying they should keep quiet on the grounds of the dangers of commenting. If they want to, do so. If they don't, that's fine too. But don't let fear of upsetting people prevent productive discussion. That's the EXACT attitude Anita and co. have that we all hate so much. "We can't let them comment cause they might include triggers or offensive terms." So instead let's just not discuss things with each other ever and secretly dictate what we think of the other group amongst ourselves for all eternity? Yeah, that'll end well... Again, that's not so much directed at obsidian, I mean it in general. I think in general this fear controlling the industry needs to stop if we're to move forward. Anita herself and her videos is a broken record and beating a dead horse, because every video contains factual flaws that no one's allowed to address or discuss directly because she blocks comments. Lo and behold, her videos remain the same as the response videos remain the same: pretentious inaccurate lectures vs. frustrated and irritated rebuttals til the end of time. If discussion does not occur in gamer gate between gamers and people "within" the industry, be they developers or journalists or SJWs, then I'm sure this'll continue with the two groups hiding away in their own little corner discussing how insane each other is.

Yknow, and this is potentially opening a can of worms: I wonder if Obsidian's own developers would be willing to comment on the matter. I ask that both because I'm curious what they have to say about it and respect their opinions. If they said "yo Silverstring media is DA BOMB" or something then I'd be willing to hear them out as to why. Same for if they said "yo SilverString media is bats*** crazy." I'd also be curious as to if they'd have any insight as to what exactly is going on; they'd have more of a direct involvement with the game development culture and could probably explain some things about why people are acting certain ways in response to certain situations etc. At any rate I wouldn't wanna force them to comment if they don't want to, since there seems to be a lot of that. I just mean I think it'd be interesting to hear from Obsidian on the matter because it's quite easy to hear "random game developer #54 who you've never heard of has this opinion about gamergate," but it's another thing to hear commentary or observations from devs you're more familiar with.

But they're not achieving anything, that's the point. The message is to play smart. Think logically, not emotionally. You really think they aren't achieving anything? You may be right, but what about some pride and dignity. Emotions.

But they're not achieving anything, that's the point. The message is to play smart. Think logically, not emotionally.

Read the EXACT post above yours. We all understand this fully. But we also live in reality and understand that sadly, many branches of feminism are extremist ones. The ones involved with GamerGate are sadly one of those, from the looks of things. FFS, this video: Guess what: she's a feminist. So yes, it's painfully obvious that the group involved with GamerGate does not represent all of feminism. ....But it would be highly inappropriate and unwise for the gaming community to handle and address the situation as though it were dealing with normal feminism. It's not.

I hear you and for anyone who isn't gay that would be applicable. But how high on the list of priorities would gay rights be for you if you were gay? I can tell you from experience that the further East you travel, the less gaydar people actually have. Noticed it VERY quickly when a class I had with people from various countries included a flaming gay Ukrainian and only myself and the latinos seemed to notice, while the asians and russians were all oblivious to it. I would later go on to advise a female russian friend that her love interest was flaming gay (which I determined after speaking to them for a grand total of five seconds) not once, but twice. In that sense, I promise you blending in as a "normal guy" if you're a flaming gay homosexual is pretty darned easy in Russia. They're not gonna drop dead suddenly any time soon. And having said that, I think what Fighter is saying is that you need to pick and choose your battles wisely. If a massive gay pride protest and parade took place in Moscow tomorrow, no one would take it seriously. If it were a protest for peace completely devoid of any gay representation, it'll be heard. Pick your battles and focus on the one you have a chance of winning first. If a gay Russian insists gay rights is more important, he's more than welcome to organize a protest aimed at that....though in my experience with the culture, I highly doubt anyone would have the balls to do that, and understandably so....which AGAIN highlights how that's the more difficult battle and the one to put on hold for now. Campaigns for basic human rights and dignity shouldn't be not practiced in a place like Russia just because of the Ukraine issue. These concerns can be interchangeable In other words I don't buy this whole argument that says " just because people are protesting about Ukrainian crisis gay activists also shouldn't protest" Imagine trying to sell that logic to activists in any Western country? You take what awareness you can raise in a place like Russia, you can't really be selective because its not like these types of marches are common as far as I know? I don't think you read my post. No one is saying they can't be there. All that was said was please don't be flaming gay and come dressing or acting in a way that screams "I'm gay" because it detracts from the purpose. This is hardly a big issue: I have to dress professionally for a job interview, they're being asked to dress less flamboyantly for protests. No one is saying they shouldn't protest about gay rights. All that was said is that in an idealistic world, that would be the case. In reality, they could get f***ing shot. Therefore, it doesn't happen. They probably want to, but also know better, and thus stay quiet and weigh SAFER options in their heads. I promise you if you went to Russia and gave your speech about basic human rights and how you should all march on the Kremlin...if you gave that speech to the very gay people who would benefit from the protest, a good percent of them wouldn't support your protest out of fear and would likely try to talk you out of it. And this is not the west. You'd be horrendously naive to handle a problem in the East as you do in the west. Different cultures exist, different mentalities exist. Act appropriately for each if you wish to live long. I for one don't go telling people my religion (or lack thereof) while in the Southern States in the USA because I'm smart enough to know it'll cause trouble, and I'm also realistic enough to know that if I organized a agnostic/athiest pride parade in a Southern state, all it'd accomplish is it might start a fight. Therefore, don't bother. The athiests and agnostics in that state will know to keep their mouths shut and pretend they're Christian too, those that don't deal with extra stress and conflict. That same rule does not apply to the rest of the United States, nor to Germany, nor to the Netherlands, nor to Canada. However, it's probably not wise to discuss how disgusted you are by Israel in Germany. (here nothing bad would happen to you, it's just gonna be HELLA AWKWARD and uncomfortable for the room) Different cultures react different ways and must be handled differently. You're free to go to Moscow and act just like you would in your own country, but don't act surprised when you end up arrested.