#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[Victorian Gray]

How exactly is blocking someone a "bully attack"?

Stop attacking the poor man by asking a reasonable question. Damn bully!

Oh yeah, mutter, mutter, rules of feminism! mutter, mutter.

 

[Blue_Max]

How exactly is blocking someone a "bully attack"?

Interesting how neither you, nor V.G., can possibly see how blocking ALL opposing views is somehow wrong...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Interesting how neither you, nor V.G., can possibly see how blocking ALL opposing views is somehow wrong...

You didn't say "wrong." You specifically said "bully attack." I'm curious how deciding you no longer want to listen to somebody equates to bullying the person you're now ignoring. And ignoring differing points of view is something that everybody does, especially if those points of view are something that you personally view as harassment. That's the beauty of freedom in our country; you have the freedom to not listen to things you don't want to. I have absolutely no idea how you could jump to "bullying" from that; I'm legitimately curious as to your thought process.

 

[Blue_Max]

What makes it bullying? Well, how about the abuse of the tool to block ALL opposition, rather than just those few actually making real threats.

It happens all. the. time. ...especially around liberal pro-feminist sites like Huffington Post. Many comments less than "fully supportive" are deleted, users are banned, IP's are blocked. It's like feminists shouting in one voice, "You MUST accept our views or be punished!"

I see that as a very real problem, as I don't particularly like totalitarianism of any kind.


...or is there a word-mincing going on here about "bullying" vs. "being shitty humans" or something? It may not be the perfect description but it's in the ballpark - especially when one feminist smells a dissenter and gets all of her cyber-sisters to join the attack against that particular user, possibly getting that person destroyed by proxy thanks to a sympathetic moderator.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

People are free to not use the tool if they feel that it is casting too wide a net in terms of who it blocks. It's a completely voluntary thing. As for getting banned from private forums... so what? A website is under no obligation to give you a soapbox to espouse your opinion. If you don't like the rules at one, find another or start your own. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that freedom of speech means that everyone has to be required to give you a medium to espouse your view, but they don't. If the government was stepping in and telling you what to say, that would be totalitarianism. A website telling you what you can or can't say is just a club establishing their own rules. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Let's use our own situation as an example. You might think I'm a belligerent asshole (you wouldn't be the first). And you can block me so that you won't have to see any of my posts. I would never know (unless you decided to tell me). That's not an example of you bullying me or you being a shitty human, or anything of the sort. It's simply you deciding that you no longer feel any point in engaging with a person that you fundamentally disagree with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's the beauty of freedom; you don't have to read/listen to anything you don't want to. Twisting that so that someone who feels they're being bullied becomes the bully by refusing to listen to their harasser takes an astounding leap of rhetorical duplicity.

 

[BoberFett]

If blocking isn't bullying, then why is it a problem that girls are being "blocked" by these basement dwelling gamers from joining in their hobby?

:sneaky:

 

[Blue_Max]

There's some truth to that. Freedom of speech in a privately-owned forum is only so far.

I'll still maintain that it's a bullying tactic when all of the "green team" gangs up on anyone who supports "red", calls them every name in the book and tries hard to convince the world that red-supporters are eeeevil, etc.

Imagine if nVidia or Intel fans decided that anyone supporting AMD should be banned from AT, or at least forever mocked for being evil, hateful, neckbearded, mouth-breathing, cellar-dwellers. Sound at all familiar?

Feminists are most definitely vilifying gamers who don't immediately jump to support their bandwagon.

At what point to we decide which priority to choose?

[Officially choose a stance on a political issue, force all users to accept it.]

[Claim to be neutral but quietly support those with the strongest opinions just to keep the peace. Ban those with opposing views that agitate the loudest complainers just to keep things calm.]

[Remain 100% neutral and allow both sides to have open discussion. Ban only those who break the law.]

 

[Blue_Max]

If blocking isn't bullying, then why is it a problem that girls are being "blocked" by these basement dwelling gamers from joining in their hobby?

:sneaky:

Naughty ah heck.

It's funny that feminists even took this stance because all the gamers I've ever known over ~35 years would be MORE than accepting to have girls come join them! A girl not calling them "losers" for playing video games instead of sports? Awesome! Joining in and having fun together? Even better! :thumbsup:

Maybe they took the occasional trash-talker too seriously. The trash-talker will slam you for being whatever you happen to be, just to get under your skin!
You announce you're young? S/He will blast you for being young. You mention you're gay and sooooper proud? S/He will take particular pleasure in blasting you for an identity you take pride in.

Mention you're a girl, S/He'll slam you for it. It's trash-talk 101. Not anti-woman.


I don't know a single gamer that gave a rat's ass whether the game was made by a female dev team or not, just whether or not it was fun to play.

Most gamers have always, ALWAYS hated games that tried to push a political or religious agenda.

Guess what - you make a "you must be a feminist" game, people are going to reject it... especially if it's not at all fun.

 

[Exophase]

You didn't say "wrong." You specifically said "bully attack." I'm curious how deciding you no longer want to listen to somebody equates to bullying the person you're now ignoring. And ignoring differing points of view is something that everybody does, especially if those points of view are something that you personally view as harassment. That's the beauty of freedom in our country; you have the freedom to not listen to things you don't want to. I have absolutely no idea how you could jump to "bullying" from that; I'm legitimately curious as to your thought process.

Going to play devil's advocate a bit with this one since I said earlier I wasn't that opposed to people using block lists for personal accounts (although I think the list heuristics can be pretty stupid)

First and foremost, we're not talking about someone blocking you, we're talking about someone adding you to a block list. Where other people you've never talked to will preemptively block you by virtue of using the list. You can assume that people who use the list will understand how the list is made, but we both know that in practice many won't. So you could end up blocked by people because they bought in to an idea that they were protecting themselves by using the block bot and taking such claims on faith. Your own friends could end up blocking you without realizing it. Hilariously, people have ended up trying to @message people who were on the block list.

Then there's the branding factor of it. People have used these lists to make sweeping negative statements about all of the people on them. IGDA initially said that GGAB blocked some of the worst harassers on the internet. They were called on it and changed it, but it's not hard to see how people would get this idea. And lately Richard Dawkins has been unhappy about being on a block bot list because people have been saying that you get on the list for being a racist. I don't think I have to explain why being labeled that can be bad for people.

So being put on these lists has the possibility for some kind of material harm. You get on lists like this by following the wrong people or tweeting the wrong hashtags, because those in power have decided that these are toxic and dangerous things. I don't know if bullying is the right term for threatening to put someone on the list, but I do think it can be used as a form of coercion and pressuring someone to stay quiet.

 

[blankslate]

Maybe because when he tries to have a discussion people start flinging shit everywhere.

No, it's the wall of youtube links.

The problem has to deal with baseless assertions, and your provided conclusion is still a baseless assertion. What's wrong is that you still have no actual evidence that there are "a lot of Homophobic asshats there". The only evidence you have is a judge's opinion and the opinion of a few spokespeople of different organizations. In other words, you're classifying a significant chunk of people (i.e. "a lot") based upon the words and/or actions of at the most a half-dozen people. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be true, but you still have nothing to back it up.

As someone that lives in the South (and is not from there), I would disagree that most people (around me) are homophobes. At least in my experience, people seem to only care about the religious aspect regardless of the fact that it shouldn't apply to politics.

Hmm... this discussion on whether it's okay to classify gamers based upon stereotypes has taken some strange turns.

Here's a basic primer on assertion and statement of possibility (or hypothesis)

In response to the Alabama Supreme Court


If I say

there's a lot of homophobic asshats in the south

I have made an assertion.

If I say

there seems to be a lot of homophobic asshats in the south

regarding the Alabama ruling that's not (imo) an assertion (more of a hypothesis) You may disagree with me and say it is (an assertion) and that it is baseless.

It's not baseless as much as it is based on only the ruling (but yeah forming a hypothesis or soft assertion on one piece of data is questionable)...


The fact that it is a questionable practice is why I said.

My conclusion based on some court rulings in the South about that issue is that there seems to be a lot of Homophobic asshats there.

The difference between the statement containing the words "there seems" and "there is" is that the former indicates yeah something looks a certain way but I can be convinced. While the latter indicates my mind is made up.

As for you not encountering any or very few people you consider homophobic where you live who knows? Perhaps you live in a more socially laissez-faire area in regards to sexual matters. Perhaps your profession tends not to have people who are anti-same sex marriage.

As baseless? ok yeah, admittedly it's not a good idea to form a hypothesis based on one data point so... let's look at a rather respectable polling organization.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-the-south-where-the-public-is-less-enthused/

Yeah it seems that there is a significant percentage of people who live in southern states who are opposed to gay marriage, in comparison to other regions.

There is the outside possibility that in Alabama that everyone but the lawyer for the plaintiff(s) who sued to keep same-sex marriage illegal and the Judge(s) are pro same-sex marriage... but given the results of the pew survey that seems rather unlikely.

Yeah it's a late reply but there was that election in the middle east and there's that possible Iran deal as well as a lot of tech security news to follow...


About that comic cover. Sure batman has been shown in "helpless" situations with the Joker and Harley-Quinn.

However, in comparison to the recent alternate cover of Bat-Girl that wasn't used there is a difference in the expressions that are on the faces of Batman in his covers. It's obvious. He's still defiant even if just as helpless as Bat-Girl. Bat-Girl has an expression of defeat. One may argue that the distinction doesn't mean much but I disagree.

The Batgirl cover is well-done in terms of technique and if her expression was a lot more defiant I'd have no issue with it. As it is the artist who did the cover expressed that it was his choice to ask for the cover to not be used upon reflecting on the criticisms of it.

*e2a*

found the a fairly recent gallup poll on the issue where

My conclusion based on some court rulings in the South about that issue is that there seems to be a lot of Homophobic asshats there.

is a baseless assertion... I still say tentative hypothesis.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

It seems you can say there are a lot of people against same sex marriage all over the states but a bit more so in the South... especially compared to the North Eastern and Western States.


......

 

[Blue_Max]

Nicely put, Exophase.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So being put on these lists has the possibility for some kind of material harm. You get on lists like this by following the wrong people or tweeting the wrong hashtags, because those in power have decided that these are toxic and dangerous things. I don't know if bullying is the right term for threatening to put someone on the list, but I do think it can be used as a form of coercion and pressuring someone to stay quiet.

"Those in power?" The blockbot was made by a random user and offered for free to anyone who wanted to use it. Was it a bit hamfisted in execution? Sure. But no one was forced to use it, and to paint it as people in power adding random innocent victims to a list of racists is a serious stretch. And even if the CEO of Twitter himself had personally made it and required it for every user of Twitter... so what? No one has a "right" to Twitter, and Twitter is under no obligation to insure that users aren't blocking other users for silly reasons. This, again, seems like a nonsensical point to me. Someone ends up on a Twitter blocklist... So what? Where's the material harm? We've had arguments made earlier in this thread that Twitter threats are harmless, now we're turning it around and saying that Twitter blocks are harmful? Where's the logical consistency? It all seems like much ado about less than nothing.

Now, granted, I could see material harm if someone's company was browsing blocklists and firing people if they showed up. But that's a dramatic overreach by a company with a shitty HR policy, not a systemic abuse of power by some Twitter users who felt they didn't want to listen to certain groups of people anymore. The idea of threatening someone with a blocklist is just so ridiculous. "You better agree with us or we're going to get you blocked by like, LITERALLY, thousands of people, all of whom already agree with us anyway!" Seriously?

 

[Aikouka]

The reason I assume his intent is negative is because there is no other way to take it. People run blockbot simply because they are tired of a group of people constantly filling their feeds with anything from pointless spam to threats, and Twitter hasn't stepped up in developing tools on their side to handle it.

Are you sure there's not just a bit of confirmation bias going on? I mean... I wouldn't blame someone else for wanting to find an easy way to ban trolls and other malicious individuals. However, you're (purposefully?) ignoring the point that he makes in the post that you quoted where he states that someone was placed on the list for ideological differences.

He is accusing the people who are being harassed as being the abusers, simply because they are tired of seeing their garbage. There is nothing out there that says Brianna Wu, Randi Harper and so on must see someone's twitter posts. It isn't a 1st Amendment issue, it isn't a human rights issue, its simply they are tired of garbage. Its a toxic approach because there is no other way to expressing things to many gamergaters.

Yes, he is stating that they are abusing the BlockBot tool to silence people posting critical statements on a massive scale. You name a few individuals and state that they don't need to see Twitter posts, and you're absolutely correct. However, apparently, by adding someone to this BlockBot, you are effectively blacklisting them from anyone who uses the service. This isn't Brianna Wu, Randi Harper (I have no idea who that is...), or whoever saying they don't want to see so-and-so's Twitter posts anymore. This is that person stating that no one (who uses BlockBot) should see that person's posts.

From what I can gather, he thinks that they are using that as a way to silence (valid?) criticism.

EDIT:

To note, most of those parenthetical remarks are there to denote that I don't really follow most of this stuff. Most of the GG news that I see is if it ends up on my Twitter feed from the people that I follow (probably just TotalBiscuit). Apart from that, there's far too much drama for me.

 

[Exophase]

"Those in power?" The blockbot was made by a random user and offered for free to anyone who wanted to use it. Was it a bit hamfisted in execution? Sure. But no one was forced to use it, and to paint it as people in power adding random innocent victims to a list of racists is a serious stretch.

Those in power means those in control of the blockbot. Nothing more. Not some kind of sweeping statement of privilege in society. I could just as much refer to the mods and admins here as being people in power, given the appropriate context.

It's not a stretch at all to paint some of these block lists as people adding random innocent victims to a list of racists. That's actual language that was used with the Atheist+ block bot (not the GamerGate one)

And even if the CEO of Twitter himself had personally made it and required it for every user of Twitter... so what? No one has a "right" to Twitter, and Twitter is under no obligation to insure that users aren't blocking other users for silly reasons. This, again, seems like a nonsensical point to me. Someone ends up on a Twitter blocklist... So what? Where's the material harm? We've had arguments made earlier in this thread that Twitter threats are harmless, now we're turning it around and saying that Twitter blocks are harmful? Where's the logical consistency? It all seems like much ado about less than nothing.

First of all, I have never said that Twitter threats are harmless. I hate it when people use this kind of consistency gotcha when talking to different people who have different opinions on things all because they fall under whatever same ideological group in the speaker's eyes.

I don't see how anyone who gets any kind of value out of Twitter (not me fwiw, I don't use it and I don't care to) can say that being blocked arbitrary comes at no harm. Especially in the scenario where you described where Twitter itself puts you on a blocklist, basically meaning you're banned under some biased third party's discretion.

I mean, I guess following people on twitter is just pointless and worthless for everyone and who cares if you're suddenly prevented from doing so? Don't you think that's kind of a smug thing to say?

No people don't have the legal right to Twitter.. that's beside the point.. most of what people argue about when it comes to social justice also has nothing to do with legal rights or constitutional freedom of speech... There's more to the good and bad in society than the rule of law...

Now, granted, I could see material harm if someone's company was browsing blocklists and firing people if they showed up. But that's a dramatic overreach by a company with a shitty HR policy, not a systemic abuse of power by some Twitter users who felt they didn't want to listen to certain groups of people anymore. The idea of threatening someone with a blocklist is just so ridiculous. "You better agree with us or we're going to get you blocked by like, LITERALLY, thousands of people, all of whom already agree with us anyway!" Seriously?

Yes, and that's why I said it's corporations using it that bugs me. I don't care if some petty ideologue blocks me because of guilt by association. I can see why some others might, but oh well. I did say I was playing devil's advocate with someone else's position. Frankly, anyone who uses a block list I'm on is probably someone of poor judgement whom I don't want to talk to. I'd probably still like to know I'm on the list though (in Twitter's case AFAIK it's obvious if you're blocked because you can't follow someone, so that should be good enough)

As far as thousands of people go, well maybe it's not the number of people but who some of them consist of? But okay, when does it become a big deal? When the media convinces millions of people to use it instead? Trust us, you want to use the block list or you'll probably be sent rape threats.

 

[0roo0roo]

Interesting how neither you, nor V.G., can possibly see how blocking ALL opposing views is somehow wrong...

When blocklists are legitimized, esp by association to organizations like IGDA, it becomes a bit dangerous, esp when they have no accountability and frankly don't even pretend to have a valid justification for their judgements.

Christina Hoff Sommers is still on the blockbot
https://************/The_Block_Bot/334921581
https://archive.today/Tpv1j

http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=270
https://archive.today/Un3hp
http://collectqt.me/
https://archive.today/iYIF4

http://i.imgur.com/ay4cgfU.jpg
The atheism plus blockbot didn't die, it got handed over to collectqt, now its just more underhanded and unaccountable..

"Those in power?" The blockbot was made by a random user and offered for free to anyone who wanted to use it. Was it a bit hamfisted in execution? Sure. But no one was forced to use it, and to paint it as people in power adding random innocent victims to a list of racists is a serious stretch. And even if the CEO of Twitter himself had personally made it and required it for every user of Twitter... so what? No one has a "right" to Twitter, and Twitter is under no obligation to insure that users aren't blocking other users for silly reasons. This, again, seems like a nonsensical point to me. Someone ends up on a Twitter blocklist... So what? Where's the material harm? We've had arguments made earlier in this thread that Twitter threats are harmless, now we're turning it around and saying that Twitter blocks are harmful? Where's the logical consistency? It all seems like much ado about less than nothing.

Now, granted, I could see material harm if someone's company was browsing blocklists and firing people if they showed up. But that's a dramatic overreach by a company with a shitty HR policy, not a systemic abuse of power by some Twitter users who felt they didn't want to listen to certain groups of people anymore. The idea of threatening someone with a blocklist is just so ridiculous. "You better agree with us or we're going to get you blocked by like, LITERALLY, thousands of people, all of whom already agree with us anyway!" Seriously?

Not really the issue, its that the people who should be against this on principle, the people who claim to be the ones with open minds open to new ideas and discussion with concern for things like free speech have uncritically defended or promoted and legitimized these things, and other people on their side will not call them on it.

The problem is also that these blocklists are deceptive, under the guise of blocking harassers they simply block people arbitrarily and based on politics If they were more honest about their agenda, it would be harder to complain about them.

And its one thing when this happens if we had many competing services, but the way social media works, is that an eventual monopoly forms since everyone is on that network, it becomes the most useful. This seems to be the natural state of social media, so there should be some accountability when they are in that kind of position of power.

Such lists if legitimized are socially corrosive. Again, if we had a healthy media, this wouldn't be a problem, but as we've found out...its anything but healthy.

Salon.com which used to host greats like Christopher Hitchens are now left publishing articles written by Arthur Chu

https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/580877609023774720
Or Matt Binder
https://twitter.com/Salon/status/580505160746663937
https://archive.today/2015032512041...ics/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Who btw won this poll http://strawpoll.me/3371972/r
and don't bother commenting at salon anymore, people like Arthur will delete anything which makes him look bad, I'm pretty sure he hit f5 over and over during the first few hours of his articles publishing.
https://twitter.com/BenBenMiri/status/581156702277369856


Bloombergs still pumping out nonsense articles on "diversity" in gaming
https://archive.today/WyFH5#selection-2709.42-2709.295
"Gamergate refers to a controversy in which women including media critic Anita Sarkeesian questioned sexism in the video-game industry. Their opponents have threatened violence and subjected Sarkeesian and others to online harassment."


Even blaming gamergate culture for the failure of "Sucker Punch"
Famous Flops: 'Sucker Punch' Was An Ahead Of Its Time Attack On 'GamerGate' Culture forbes
https://archive.today/6I4M7
I mean seriously

Even Anita hated it...


[Movies] Did #GamerGate culture cause SUCKER PUNCH to flop 4 years ago? (Video Response)
MundaneMatt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m6QwUm3qh0


The Huff Po continues to embarass itself
https://archive.today/zo0BN

Woman who finds Sarkeesian credible doesn't think all those female game characters are main stream....
https://twitter.com/lizzyf620/status/581180310945153024

It seems twitters getting a taste of some of its own medicine though...getting sued themselves.

Twitter lawsuit highlights gender discrimination in tech industry
RT America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7w-p2IvWRs

New documentary smear piece GTFO, standard lie from the media
"Full disclosure: I love this movie simply because it exists. "
https://archive.today/e8dCT
No comments because comments must be preapproved.


A few small cracks in the media, nyt is covering the hugbox....
In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=2

And as I said before, these people are perverting the rules of places like twitter where now, just claiming that people are mentioning you is harassment. But that is the entire point of twitter, its a public messaging service. These people also consider being responded to by a bunch of people "dogpiling" and thus harassment, but if you say something stupid in public, how are people really going to throttle that response, its absurd.

Plus its disingenuous, these people know twitter has a protected mode, so if they really wanted it to be a private "friends only" network, they'd turn that feature on. But really what they want is yet another platform where they are allowed to speak without any response or accountability.

And again, if many people are blocking an account it can be suspended? This means a blockbot can be used as an underhanded way to suspend someone for no good reason at all.

Stop attacking the poor man by asking a reasonable question. Damn bully!

Oh yeah, mutter, mutter, rules of feminism! mutter, mutter.

Its not the simple fact of blocking, its the fact that these people have proven they will twist and alter the rules so they can use such instruments to attack people. By any fair application of the rules the blockbot writers account would have long ago been suspended and this wouldn't be an issue anymore, if the media and the left held them to account, again, it wouldn't be an issue, it would be no more effective than a west borough baptist church blockbot, because no one in their right mind would use it, but as it is, its given legitimacy by the lazy and corrupt media.





Reddit Mod Asks Other Mods To Stand Against Reddit’s Corruption, Censorship
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/20...-stand-against-reddits-corruption-censorship/

Halo: Reach Dev Talks Developer Bonuses, Legislation And Creative Censorship
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/20...-bonuses-legislation-and-creative-censorship/

IGDA is super nosy...

and just a little more hypocrisy from Randi Harper

 

[0roo0roo]

Justine Tunney (Founder of OccupyWallSt.org) Interview on #GamerGate (Highlights)
Video Game Journalism (YTheAlien)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXVWLA5eKO0


GamerGate 35.0
TheAndredal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeputoQ_g-8

Battlefield Hardline DRM, MKX Reveals, More Remasters, MLB 14 Online Support Ending + More!
EventStatus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVCI_JFAhkU

Richard Stanton some lefty writer for the usual suspects, the guardian/polygon etc made an ass of himself challenging GamerGate people to a fight, of course women responded and he had to block them
Unstable Gaming Journo Challenges GamerGate to a Fistfight
http://theralphretort.com/unstable-gaming-journo-challenges-gamergate-to-a-fistfight-3026015/

their chosen avatars reflect the gender and societal norms they always denigrate....
https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/580956332225855488/photo/1
More interesting were his comments on Sarkeesian.

These people know they are lying, but the ends always justifies the means.



A Dramatic Reading of Rich Stanton's Tweets About #GamerGate
Commissar of GamerGate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTz_QMWbQbs



Arstechnica interviewed 8chan's creator "Hotwheels" Brennan
https://archive.today/bV0Q2
https://archive.today/5MK7p
https://archive.today/T0KVq

And Zoe Quinn finally got a mention again in GG because her recent statements make it more clear that she deliberately misled the court.

https://archive.today/L4Lfw
https://archive.today/jjrN5
https://archive.today/XzNQf
https://***********/@brokenomelette/understanding-the-zoe-affidavit-29d001415f23
*medium

Zoe Quinn lied in court
veemonro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIonhN5A5oA



TNV #GamerGate Series: What is "Political Correctness"?
New Versailles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgORcPQ6rY

How to Feminist - Delshaw Daily
Evan Delshaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO2uuFRuV5Y


Sexism and Stereotypes in Video Games?
KiteTales
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZueOCLGt1tw


A guide to the dark side
Pat Condell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8bmMrfMYw


TL;DR - Universities Don't Understand Safe Spaces
TL;DR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPACoV94O6c

And Milo of Breitbart... trolling up a storm
How To Correctly Express Approval At A Feminist Conference
Milo Yiannopoulos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3MY3016FAk

Has Britain become hostile to blokes? (The Big Questions, 15/3/15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97k8SNnQkgY
Kate Smurthwaite's post debate butthurt
https://archive.today/JtsBD

Life Through the Eyes of SJW's
The Sandre Guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6iqKjPDGWE

ANTI-FEMINIST PROTEST PRANK!
Simple Misfits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBoT9mmtTO8

Not sure if this one is a troll...

After having a discussion with TotalBiscuit, he ended up posting a follow-up video to better explain his point. From what I got, he's mainly displeased with people that attempt to mislead their viewers by doing things like saying, "Donate and you can send me a boyfriend application." Personally, I've never seen that, but I don't watch that many Twitch streams. However, no one seemed surprised when he mentioned it. He also mentioned disliking it when people are supposedly streaming a game, but they have their camera taking up the majority of their screen or a full-screen view (i.e. no game at all).

I don't watch many twitch streams either, but as long as its consensual, why does it matter? The problem with sjw's is that they need to condemn or censor things they can't compete with because their content generally doesn't justify it. If his streams are that much better, it shouldn't be an issue.

Just a satirical take on it...
Twitch Announces New Dress Code for Female Gamers
https://archive.today/2o6tU
http://i.imgur.com/n0azlz8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jQSWGmK.jpg

 

[Exophase]

Richard Stanton some lefty writer for the usual suspects, the guardian/polygon etc made an ass of himself challenging GamerGate people to a fight, of course women responded and he had to block them
Unstable Gaming Journo Challenges GamerGate to a Fistfight
http://theralphretort.com/unstable-gaming-journo-challenges-gamergate-to-a-fistfight-3026015/

Those tweets.. what an awful person.

I would straight up fund travel for any of those women who want to take him up on his offer, if he actually meant it.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't watch many twitch streams either, but as long as its consensual, why does it matter? The problem with sjw's is that they need to condemn or censor things they can't compete with because their content generally doesn't justify it. If his streams are that much better, it shouldn't be an issue.

As long as what is consensual... female streamers asking for donations to send in boyfriend applications? The idea of donating for boyfriend applications (or just boyfriend applications in general) probably sounds really stupid to most people on here (and it is), but you really have to understand the weird nuances of Twitch "culture" to get it. Streamers usually foster their own community within Twitch with their own nuances, mores and rules. In a sense, you could argue that these streamers become sort of "idols" to their viewers where a response to something from chat is met with "senpai noticed me!" (Yes, they went all weeabo and mixed Japanese in there.) It's that sort of weird idol-like status is what makes the whole boyfriend application thing even worse. That doesn't even get into how some of these people are the stereotypical guys that are geeky and have trouble with women.

TotalBiscuit actually came to mind while writing that, because he's very adamant about not trying to do that. He's expressed many times (especially in discussions on Twitch streaming habits such as top donors, etc.) that he doesn't want to be your friend. His goal is to fulfill more of a producer-consumer relationship.

Also, to be clear, I don't think the guy who made the videos is worried about competing with female streamers that do these sorts of things. I think he's more worried about the effects of their actions as a whole.

Even blaming gamergate culture for the failure of "Sucker Punch"
Famous Flops: 'Sucker Punch' Was An Ahead Of Its Time Attack On 'GamerGate' Culture forbes
https://archive.today/6I4M7

Sucker Punch flopped because it was a terrible movie, and good lord, I only got halfway through that article before I just gave up. There's only so much one person can take when it comes to silly buzzwords like "tools of oppression". I'd need to delve deeper into similar articles on media, but I'm drawing a correlation between people that use that sort of flowery language and those that always try to point out a hidden meaning that fits whatever agenda they've espoused.

I think that sort of nicely ties into something that was on my mind last night. It all started with some tweets I read the other day from TotalBiscuit. He posted about his opinion on the absurdity of the author of the Marvel's Loki comic series including a GamerGate-based Internet meme in the comic. He posted a series of tweets about political leanings bleeding into non-political works. Well, as an example of what makes Twitter a terrible platform for soapboxing, Keza MacDonald from Kotaku UK (may remember her from IGN UK) posted a sort of retort to one of his tweets. In it, she took his tweet to suggest that games shouldn't have political leanings, and unless I'm mistaken, she went on to bring up ones that do and why they should.

I agree with some of her points, but I don't really agree on every game example, and I think it's the same problem with the guy watching Sucker Punch. Essentially, these people see politics (or some other aspect of the world) being used in a game, and they assume that there's some hidden parallel with the real world or a hidden meaning. For example, does anyone really think that Grand Theft Auto, which was one of her examples, is a game with a political message?

Now, what I was pondering this morning was actually about the use of the phrase, "Gaming is an art form." I'm sure we've all seen this, and people will talk about how Roger Ebert thought that games were not, and so on. I've been wondering whether people don't think that gaming can be an art form without adding a deeper meaning to everything.

 

[Nebor]

This Stephen Bendelow guy is ridiculous. A grown ass man, scared of the internet.

 

[0roo0roo]

Justine Tunney reddit ama taking questions now
https://twitter.com/JustineTunney/status/581978065728851968
Justine Tunney (Founder of OccupyWallSt.org) Interview on #GamerGate (Highlights)
Video Game Journalism (YTheAlien)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXVWLA5eKO0

GamerGate 36.0
TheAndredal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivM3Argta9Y

DIVINITY: ORIGINAL SIN DEV TALKS BOOB-PLATES, SEXISM AND MORAL OUTRAGE
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/20...v-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

Ars prints more lies
Ars Quinn “That life is over”: Zoe Quinn looks beyond GamerGate
https://archive.today/pAomb#selection-893.135-897.40
https://archive.today/swIci
https://archive.today/kVl25
Her trust fund boyfriend shows up in the comments to tear him a new one
http://theralphretort.com/highlight-reel-alex-lifschitz-get-blown-out-by-cousin-3028015/

DailyKos writes up an entire smear piece on 8chan, and brennan supposedly threatening ars to write a piece on him...
https://archive.today/qFNZT


Ellen Pau lost her frivolous sexual discrimination lawsuit, Brianna Wu and the rest quickly defended her, as did the media
https://archive.today/6Uf7Y

USA Today Ellen Pao's suit was wake-up call for Silicon Valley
http://archive.today/gtOWx
http://recode.net/2015/03/27/live-the-pao-v-kleiner-perkins-verdict/
https://twitter.com/JenniferJMedina/status/581566048496832512
business insider
https://archive.today/9cjII
Pau tried to turn the defeat into a victory by making it about sexism, Gamergate took over her hashtag of course
https://twitter.com/search?q=#ThankYouEllenPao&src=tyah
Beyond the lawsuit, she and reddit of course are dirty
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/reddit-mods-admit-to-censoring-gamergate-hiding-corruption/
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/20...-stand-against-reddits-corruption-censorship/ http://steamcommunity.com/groups/GamerGaters#announcements/detail/204125142566279175


devs speak out against censorship

Basically this undermines the entire argument of sjw's on games...
US Court rulings in favor of video games vs. accusations of real life violence/sexism causations.
Homer Ruglia Beoulve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZlqKPVt58U

Brianna concocts another threat but accidentally defuses it
http://theralphretort.com/brianna-wu-loses-her-shit-spawns-piegate-3027015/

https://************/Advocationist/...o-twitter&utm_source=*****&awesm=sfy.co_s0GtC
*storify
And sjw's don't understand how twitter works...
http://archive.today/5TIOd

 

[0roo0roo]

LIONHEAD SHAMEFULLY APOLOGIZES FOR SHARING “FOAMING JUGS” ART AFTER SJW BARRAGE
http://theralphretort.com/lionhead-shamefully-apologizes-for-sharing-foaming-jugs-art-03027015/

https://archive.today/rLulQ

CLEAVAGE is OFFENSIVE!! - The Lionhead #NationalCleavageDay Fiasco
Chris Ray Gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_ztmqs68Q

Lionhead Apologizes For Their Own Asset Art #NationalCleavageDay
Tyler Valle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LovETTrosg



Sjw hypocrisy ...as always

https://archive.today/QPYyo
https://archive.today/N9coi
So gamergate took over the aggressivecleavage and nationalcleavageday hashtags
https://twitter.com/hashtag/NationalCleavageDay?src=hash
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=#aggressivecleavage
Apparently mild mannered Oliver Campbell is ripped as fuck
https://twitter.com/oliverbcampbell/status/581542951421022208

Brianna Wu and her missogyst followers encourage slut shaming
veemonro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP3nT009Hss

Behind- #GamerGate with @Raziel9000
Dr. Layman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgfewAPN2SU

Liberals vs. University, how screwed are we? with @Sargon_of_Akkad
Dr. Layman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UholLerYXFM

and yea, first thor, now this is happening in comics

 

[fskimospy]

At what point do you just lock this thread?

 

[norseamd]

At what point do you just lock this thread?

Why?

 

[fskimospy]

Why?

Because it's just a daily dump from a crazy person.

 

[0roo0roo]

As long as what is consensual... female streamers asking for donations to send in boyfriend applications? The idea of donating for boyfriend applications (or just boyfriend applications in general) probably sounds really stupid to most people on here (and it is), but you really have to understand the weird nuances of Twitch "culture" to get it. Streamers usually foster their own community within Twitch with their own nuances, mores and rules. In a sense, you could argue that these streamers become sort of "idols" to their viewers where a response to something from chat is met with "senpai noticed me!" (Yes, they went all weeabo and mixed Japanese in there.) It's that sort of weird idol-like status is what makes the whole boyfriend application thing even worse. That doesn't even get into how some of these people are the stereotypical guys that are geeky and have trouble with women.

But the problem is that tends to apply to all of them, you see their audience throwing "donations" at their idols. One of the few streams I checked out once was the phillip defranco stream, and he was basically getting money from people even though he's probably a millionaire at this point. Its all sempai noticed me, because they read the comment when they get the donation.

Twitch is nothing, if one is to be worried about white knights paying women, I'd look at patreon, because that is what is funding many of these professional victims. Beyond that there are paypigs... as revealed earlier in gamergate when one feminist attacking gamergate got outed for making a living from taking mens money...
http://theralphretort.com/trouble-in-paradise-sjw-findom-goes-into-a-funk-01018015/
http://theralphretort.com/mike-sacc...ecret-findomme-life-allegedly-revealed-20315/
http://theralphretort.com/miscavige-would-be-proud-mike-sacco-sjw-ostracization-202015/
Apparently there is some "findom"(financial domination) phenomenon you can find on twitter, and probably other sites.

TotalBiscuit actually came to mind while writing that, because he's very adamant about not trying to do that. He's expressed many times (especially in discussions on Twitch streaming habits such as top donors, etc.) that he doesn't want to be your friend. His goal is to fulfill more of a producer-consumer relationship.
Also, to be clear, I don't think the guy who made the videos is worried about competing with female streamers that do these sorts of things. I think he's more worried about the effects of their actions as a whole.

Issue with tb is just disclosure, as long as nothing is promised which is legal or
can't be delivered.... I can't see a problem with it.

Whether the other guy is worried or not because he's threatened by competition, no way to tell, but its just a choice, and one could simply argue that he should be worried about all the time he's wasting by encouraging people to watch him play a video game

Sucker Punch flopped because it was a terrible movie, and good lord, I only got halfway through that article before I just gave up. There's only so much one person can take when it comes to silly buzzwords like "tools of oppression". I'd need to delve deeper into similar articles on media, but I'm drawing a correlation between people that use that sort of flowery language and those that always try to point out a hidden meaning that fits whatever agenda they've espoused.

I think that sort of nicely ties into something that was on my mind last night. It all started with some tweets I read the other day from TotalBiscuit. He posted about his opinion on the absurdity of the author of the Marvel's Loki comic series including a GamerGate-based Internet meme in the comic. He posted a series of tweets about political leanings bleeding into non-political works. Well, as an example of what makes Twitter a terrible platform for soapboxing, Keza MacDonald from Kotaku UK (may remember her from IGN UK) posted a sort of retort to one of his tweets. In it, she took his tweet to suggest that games shouldn't have political leanings, and unless I'm mistaken, she went on to bring up ones that do and why they should.

I agree with some of her points, but I don't really agree on every game example, and I think it's the same problem with the guy watching Sucker Punch. Essentially, these people see politics (or some other aspect of the world) being used in a game, and they assume that there's some hidden parallel with the real world or a hidden meaning. For example, does anyone really think that Grand Theft Auto, which was one of her examples, is a game with a political message?

Now, what I was pondering this morning was actually about the use of the phrase, "Gaming is an art form." I'm sure we've all seen this, and people will talk about how Roger Ebert thought that games were not, and so on. I've been wondering whether people don't think that gaming can be an art form without adding a deeper meaning to everything.

Yes, they literally took a swipe at gamergate in thor

And I think this guy more or less answered the deeper meaning issue

And I don't trust them on issues of art, because the people they promote create things like walking simulators, or depression quest.

Review of @FoldableHuman s vidya game
veemonro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBMNysxB3w

Social Justice Hypocrites: #ZeroBiscuit and Exclusionist Behaviour(David Gallant)
Sargon of Akkad
https://youtu.be/dHARfEhUgNE?t=11m8s
Yes..ms paint..

Anita Sarkeesian's Game Idea: Good or Bad?
Asalieri2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRYv73OeoGI

Anita Sarkeesian Part 2: Burqa Beach Party
Instig8iveJournalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI


Splat!, Narrated *nsfw
Sargon of Akkad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLl88OMWOY

Interior Semiotics, Narrated *nsfw
Sargon of Akkad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lbece7RqZU