Elerond

Did they actually think that the Sami weren't white? I suspect more of the regular old click-bait inanity instead. People for some reason link all indigenous populations, regardless where they are from, to be people of color, even though Sámi people belong same population speaking Finno-Ugric languages as Finss, Estonians and Hungarians, with that difference that they have mixed less with Indo-European populations.

And I hoped that it had stopped, but it is back to fill my twitter feed This time we got article that supports gamergate that delve into how hate from both side obscures real purpose of gamergate, but article don't have clear focus point, but seem to try cover all issues that bother writer. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it

"'GameJournoPros' is a private mailing list which the owners of competing game publications use to communicate outside of public eye" There are forums mailing lists, events, sauna evenings (informal private gatherings), etc. in every industry, political circle including all forms of media, which people with similar interest organize, so that they can talk and share information with people in same field. This is not corruption in any form, but normal social behavior that most people participate in their own lives (of course interest and topics of this gatherings change depending on interest and work that people do). Of course these social can lead problems, like make it harder for new people get in the field, as they need to get access on these things to build their social standing in community/ies of their field and get access to information that is shared in these things. And these things can cause formation of Old boy network where members of network have better change to get better positions in the field. So it is not corruption or unethical thing to have private mailing list where you speak with other people of your field (even those that are you direct competition), but of course it can lead to favouritism and way to make things more difficult to new people to get in the business if it becomes too dominant social club/circle in the said business.

Speeding actively endangers others. Trash talk does not. Big difference. Then you must have never played competetive multiplayer or been in heated debates. One could easily claim that speeding don't in most cases endanger others. And one could also claim that trash talk can cause depression, anxiety and other mental (health) issues that endanger others. I have played competitive multiplayers even when players needed to use same computer to play them. I have been heated debates regularly, but maybe I have selected forums that with care and shield myself from realities of World (I have doubts that is the case, but it is also hard to judge your own behavior).

There has been three mass shootings and one bombing of shopping center in past 12 years in Finland, in every of these cases except one (our newest one where perpetrator got angry in line to food kiosk and decided to get his guns and kill everybody) there has been threats from perpetrator that they will do these acts in internet beforehand and each case police deemed those threats to be nothing but empty talks in internet, so much so that in one case the even gave weapon buy permit to perpetrator for weapon that he use in his killing spree even though they knew that he had threaten to shoot his fellow students. Which is why I think that internet threats should be taken as seriously as those that are made to face to face. If we don't take threats in internet seriously they will work as mask that obscures us to see those threats from people that actually will commit acts they threat to do and changes our attitudes towards hostile language so that we don't even blink when people use crude and uncivil language when they speak to us, which just make our society so much less pleasant to live (but that maybe just me not everybody else). And for every one of those there is a million that amount to nothing. Statistically, you have a higher chance of being stuck by lighting while in a rubber suit between two metal buildings. Problem with taking everything seriously then it doesn't leave room for everything else. You talk about a pleasant society to live in? I for one don't consider police states pleasant. Should speeding not be a offence or thing that is treated seriously as there is every day billions of occurrences of speeding that don't lead accidents or road deaths and statistically those to happen compared to number of speedings is so marginal that people die more probably to meteoroid hit than it is to one occurrence speeding to cause accident. I have used BBS/internet as way to communicate nearly every day with people from beginning of 1990s and I have not received even single death threat against me or anybody close to me in all this time. So I don't necessary believe that number of death threats in internet is necessary in uncontrollable numbers as most of them focus on small set of people. Of course I could be privileged person who can't understand real scope of the problem. If we take every threat seriously there is high change that number of threats will drop, because people can't yell their threats without risk that there is consequences. If you think that state become police state when there are consequences when you threat to kill somebody, then we have different meanings for that word. Latest from twitter. Polygon has written editorial about gamergate, journalistic ethics, corruption of gaming media and gaming culture. http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor

Elliot Rodger threated to shoot people in internet earlier this year before his killing spree, comes first to my mind. So one time out of a bajillion threats. Go on. There has been three mass shootings and one bombing of shopping center in past 12 years in Finland, in every of these cases except one (our newest one where perpetrator got angry in line to food kiosk and decided to get his guns and kill everybody) there has been threats from perpetrator that they will do these acts in internet beforehand and each case police deemed those threats to be nothing but empty talks in internet, so much so that in one case the even gave weapon buy permit to perpetrator for weapon that he use in his killing spree even though they knew that he had threaten to shoot his fellow students. Which is why I think that internet threats should be taken as seriously as those that are made to face to face. If we don't take threats in internet seriously they will work as mask that obscures us to see those threats from people that actually will commit acts they threat to do and changes our attitudes towards hostile language so that we don't even blink when people use crude and uncivil language when they speak to us, which just make our society so much less pleasant to live (but that maybe just me not everybody else).

Here is something even more interesting: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179 Law enforcement deemed there was never an imminent threat. Anita canceled her talk because of Utah's CCW law. Spin it how you will, those are the facts. Imminent threat is something that has ability to cause harm to people if they don't take immediate actions to prevent such harm. But university and university's police have said that they had prepared extra secure measures at the presentation, but Sarkeesian felt that those extra measures were insufficient without checking that nobody brings guns at the presentation which is why she decided to cancel it. Read the link provided, learn what a CCW law is, and ask yourself why she wants people to give up their rights when she was never in any danger. I have read that link, and I know why police could not do checks that she asked. But link don't say that she was not in any danger, but that there was no imminent danger (meaning gun man at lose hide, there is bomb in building leave type situations.). Police thought that there was risk for shooting, which is why they added extra security measures (as police don't add extra security measures if the deem that there is no risk), but Sarkeesian wanted security measure that was against Utah's law (no guns at the her presentation), which police could not offer (as it was forbidden by law) and Sarkeesian decided to cancel her presentation after she learned that is the case. She has not done petition/proposal/demand/anything similar to remove Utah's resident's rights. Only person that has demanded to people to lose their rights is the one who threatened USU if they don't cancel her presentation. People also have right to disagree with the law if they follow it, disagreeing with law usually is not seen as act to removing or even wanting to remove rights that law offer. I found it quite interesting that you seem to worry more over fact that Sarkeesian had disagreements about how well law can protect people when she just had received terrorist threat, than over the fact the somebody used terrorist threat to suppress Sarkeesian's and USU's rights. And did so successfully, as said terrorist threat succeeded to get results that its issuer seem to wanted.

Elliot Rodger threated to shoot people in internet earlier this year before his killing spree, comes first to my mind. Is a slippery slope, up next people will be getting prosecuted because of precog crime. There isn't any real basis to put a person in jail just because they said something stupid. Threating to kill somebody somebodies is just not stupid but is act that is considered to be crime in many countries which USA is one.

Elliot Rodger threated to shoot people in internet earlier this year before his killing spree, comes first to my mind.

Here is something even more interesting: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179 Law enforcement deemed there was never an imminent threat. Anita canceled her talk because of Utah's CCW law. Spin it how you will, those are the facts. Imminent threat is something that has ability to cause harm to people if they don't take immediate actions to prevent such harm. But university and university's police have said that they had prepared extra secure measures at the presentation, but Sarkeesian felt that those extra measures were insufficient without checking that nobody brings guns at the presentation which is why she decided to cancel it.

Asking more ethical journalism, but not actually stating what one means with such abstract notion (ethical journalism) or saying that game journalism should be more like typical journalism have both high change to produce results that are unsatisfactory for those that ask such things. When people can't get in consensus on ethical questions like is it right to kill another human being in some circumstances or is it ethical to waste food when hundreds of millions of people suffer from hunger/starvation in world. It seem bit naive to just ask more ethical journalism without specifying what that statement actually entail, as it is absolute sure that without details people will have many different interpretation what that means. And I would also guess that most of the journalist think that they conduct their business in ethical manner, so it should not be very surprising that so general statement don't rise much of passion or self reflect in the most of the journalists or even majority (my guess no data to back up such statement) people. I would say that most of what one can except is to get reactions like yeah more ethics is good, but such concerns don't apply to me because I already am ethical (people rarely see themselves unethical if you can't convince that something they are doing is unethical, by showing that things they are doing hurts somebody/something).

Geek & Sundry tweets one of their vlogers video where he talks about gamergate and how he thinks that it is not movement or equivalent, but a brand and not even very shiny one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa-NzqCJ4lM&feature=youtu.be

And I had so high hopes that there would not be gamegate related tweets before I go in bed, but then Jim Sterling retweeted this https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin

Somebody has added #gamergate and #notyourshield on twitter bot Eliza's keyword list. Eliza is bot that uses primitive AI algorithm with same name from 1960s that simulates Rogerian psychotherapist and it seems that it has had nice talks with people using those hastags. New Statesman has published article which writer seems be quite glad over fact that people have been wasting their time by talking with bot. http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time

In interviews in past few days she has said that she is sex positive feminist and said that she don't think that there is anything wrong in sexualized women in video games if it's not done in derogatory way and women don't only exist to be objects of desire, etc. things. Revolution 60 seems to be quite liked in iTunes, reviews in magazines seems to be more mixed. It seems that critics whose reviews don't fit in party line should be blacklisted from reviewing games. https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/522507578665074688 It is very interesting to see people to ask publishers to make sure that reviews of their game in launch day are positive by blacklisting publications that would give them poor reviews. I though the idea was something about make things more ethical or something like that, not to find ways to maximize big publishers' profits. https://twitter.com/Ex_nihilo_0/status/522498689399402496

BBC coverage about threats against USU and Anita and it also covers GamerGate, writer seems to do his best to keep neutral tone. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29626809

PC Gamer tweets about their article about USU incident, in which they mention that Anita says that some of the threats had #GamerGate tag in them http://www.pcgamer.com/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-university-talk-after-school-shooting-threat/ This link is not from tweets, but from PCGamer's articles comments where article's writer posted it together with that Jezebel article that I posted previously. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134397896&postcount=12285

Maybe - just maybe - men are more willing to work extra hours or take on more tasks because they value money more, and women value their free time more? (in general) And that is just one of those societal factors that I spoke, of course it is possible that male genetics make them more willing to do more overtime and female genetics make women value their free time more. But I would bet that such differences originate from differences how society see members of different genders and how they are raised and how culture in general perceives and influences them. So it is not simple issue that can be solved with ease, but more a issue that needs changes in society if people want it to be solved.

But even so, if you're a manager and you have a man and a woman applying for the same job, with the same credentials. You as the manager isn't going to hire the woman who gets paid less? You're the manager, you need to keep costs down. You would hire the woman for less pay. That is complicated question. If you as manager see man more qualified in job because of preconceived notions that you aren't even aware then you hire man, but if you don't have those notions and see them both as qualified to job you will hire the woman, who asked less pay because of some factors that make her to value her time less than that man. Both options are things that happen in real life and because of first option I have gotten job instead of more qualified woman (at least on paper, who is my friend, which is reason why I know how much she asked and what her qualifications are compared to mine) even though I asked 600€ more per month.

I want to see those statistics. There's a lot of talk about it, but I've yet to hear about actual examples, only "hear-says". I work in a software company and most of the staff is women. They get paid just as much. Heck, every woman I know in various other companies and jobs and talked about it, never complained that their wages were lower. There are always differences between employes, but there are many factors to that - overtime, bonuses, work quotas, etc, etc.. You can look them up by searching studies about salary differences. I will not quote any specific numbers because they will change depending on what has been studied and how study has been concluded. But there is hundreds of studies done by subject and which politicians choose ones that seem to best support their views about matter. There are probably studies that support you view of things, so you can choose to believe them if you will, but when statics show that one gender in general gets less salary than other, then I would say that overtime, bonuses, work quotas, etc. etc. don't work as only explanation why it is so, but as I said salary differences don't necessary are results from employers actions/malice/prejudice/etc. but factors caused by general society (like women ask less pay, because of some factor, men do overtime more because of some factor, men are perceived more qualified/better workers because of some factors, etc.). But I will say that when statistics from source to source show that one gender gets paid less than other then I would say that there are some other factors in play than your typical work compensation factors alone, but I also think that most if not all of these other factors originate outside of employers. Here is EU's general report about subject, which references several studies about subject. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/140319_gpg_en.pdf

Yup

It is not something that companies do intentionally out of malice, but that happens because of much more obscure factors, which is why fixing it is difficult and time consuming process. Especially when many of those factors originate from things in general social consensus and what kind views people have grown with. For example companies often think that they treat men and women equally but their own statistics often show that women with same qualifications than men get offered smaller starting salary, which many women take as face value as they in anonymous inquiries about subject often value their time less than men, and often you can also find that men get more often and bigger raises than women, but it is also shown that women typically ask less and smaller raises than men. Where we come back to that point where I said that difference in salary isn't necessary because of malice/sexism/etc. from company but because of our societies views about subject and how we raise and educate our children and how our culture influences (like people not even believing in the subject or making light about subject) them. And it also should be remembered that people work 40-60 years of their life so salary statistics are still influenced by politics of 1940s and 1950s, which make subject even more complicate to analyse and to find solution (which all the members of society don't even want to do in the first place).

I am always so happy to read twitter in these days Terrorist threats against Utah State University because they have Anita Sarkeesian as quest speaker in some of their events. Article writer of course remembers to link that threat to GamerGate. http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Utah-State-University-student-threatens-act-of-terror-if-feminist.html TotalBiscuit has recover somewhat from his cancer treatments has come back to give defensive voice for gamergate. Washington Post gives their try to explain what GamerGate is and it don't draw very pretty picture http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/

Although I have seen little to none evidence that Grayson gave any coverage for developer in question after their possible sexual relationship, so looking from that point of view there was really no need him to recuse himself or disclose such relationship. But any way in this point of time I feel that that particular case is worst hindrance that GamerGate has, because of way people decided to attack developer in question first and only afterwards start to rise questions about journalist in the question. It becomes in my opinion very problematic thing especially because those attacks against said developer were the tinder for article series in multiple publications that are know as "Gamers are Dead" articles which GamerGate uses to fuel their movement. Which in my opinion creates problematic basis for the movement and gives door for the people to criticize the movement and accuses them for things like women hating and sexism. And movement also isn't helped by fact that one of it loudest voices comes from journalist that writes in publication that has at least previously shown heavy anti-gamer mentality and holds opinions against woman rights movements. And said journalist has written several articles that are seen attacks against sexual minorities. In my opinion GamerGate need to do better PR (produce articles and videos that can't perceived as attacks or angry rants or conspiracy theories. Produce articles and videos that condemn attacks and don't try to defend them by saying that there are attacks in both sides [because GamerGate is social and political movement and there is no oppose side for it, only people that criticize it for one reason or another, but they don't form opposite movement that tries to compete with it] ), find better mouth pieces for their movement and I would also say they should focus their message better (meaning to specify what they mean with corruption in (gaming) journalism and start to give propositions of possible solutions). Because in current form it seems to only accomplish to mud public opinions about gamers and gaming at general.