Feminist Frequency to pivot toward combating “gendered online harassment”

FF discloses financials, announces plans for new "masculinity in games" video series.

Read the whole story

 

[noops]

rcht148[/url]":1ysyvr7d] but zoey quinn did resort to doxxing one of the guys who filed a FOIA request against her

Source?

 

[noops]

RFT[/url]":3dl4mfz5]

rcht148[/url]":3dl4mfz5]

alexmoffat[/url]":3dl4mfz5]

rcht148[/url]":3dl4mfz5]

alexmoffat[/url]":3dl4mfz5]

rcht148[/url]":3dl4mfz5]A lot of people portray gamergate to be a black and white topic but I think it's more layered than that.

Maybe at one point you could say that, now it's a hate group.

You can't let a small minority define what the broader group stands for. Are you one of those folks who says that Islam is a hate religion just because of the actions of a few? In that case, I don't think we both will agree to a common ground...

It's not a small minority. The analogy would be not with Islam, at this point if you want one it's with ISIS. Perhaps the one good guy in ISIS thinks "hey, there are some good ideas here, people really should pay more attention to X" or whatever but when your basic mode of operation is beheading it's pointless. GamerGate is a toxic mess and anyone who thinks there is anything worth saving is either deluded or being deliberately disingenuous.

ISIS really? Have you seen #notyourshield. There are literally thousands of people (maybe more) who do not agree with the hatred against women and their right to free speech. If there was so much hate as ISIS in gamergate all you would ever see in threads like this is death/rape threats like you see with ISIS on TV or elsewhere. Instead what we have here is a civil or systematic debate where I do respect your thoughts and opinion.

#notyourshield - the hashtag that is the literal definition of irony. *snicker*

No, it's just them being honest: not _your_ shield. It's their shield.

 

[noops]

ty88[/url]":t72mquj9]None of it has been debunked several times. You don't think her saying that hitman is about killing woman and manhandling their bodies to elicit sexual satisfaction might be slightly taking the game out of context? Especially since you're penalized for killing innocents? Like I said she has a tendency to take maybe something of a game that is 1% of in game content and make it out like the whole purpose of the game is to abuse woman in that fashion. She does this ad infinitum in throughout her videos.

Do you know what a trope is? Do you understand you can talk about tropes as bad without impugning the entire work?

Or did she actually say Hitman is only about abusing women?

 

[noops]

rcht148[/url]":1u16mmde]

noops[/url]":1u16mmde]

rcht148[/url]":1u16mmde] but zoey quinn did resort to doxxing one of the guys who filed a FOIA request against her

Source?

http://theralphretort.com/court-dox-rev ... -01011015/
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ ... who_tried/

I'm not sure what the ralphretort link is supposed to show me with regards to doxxing.

For the reddit 'source' as far as I can tell Zoey Quinn retweeted something some people consider doxxing. It's one thing to say she 'resorted to doxxing' and another to say she retweeted something about her. I do believe she deleted the tweet. Of course that is probably seen as deleting the evidence...

Both of these 'sources' have a known hate-boner for Zoe Quinn.

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":2glijl64]This should be unbiased. It's not like her last videos were chock full of cherry picked and out of context points to create evidence to fit her conclusion. A conclusion she never had created before looking at the facts...oh wait.
She's the feminist version of Jack Thompson. For you kiddies out there Google him.

Oh she is trying to use the legal system to literally remove games from store shelves?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1sebgute]

noops[/url]":1sebgute]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1sebgute]This should be unbiased. It's not like her last videos were chock full of cherry picked and out of context points to create evidence to fit her conclusion. A conclusion she never had created before looking at the facts...oh wait.
She's the feminist version of Jack Thompson. For you kiddies out there Google him.

Oh she is trying to use the legal system to literally remove games from store shelves?

She is the female, feminist version of Jack Thompson in that her argument is she claims that video games have caused and continue to cause misogyny in society. This is false. If violent video games don't make you more violent (Jack Thompsons claim was that they do) then they also cannot make you a misogynistic and thus perpetuate so called misogyny in society.
Games can't cause you to be more violent but cause cause you to be misogynist? That is illogical.
Anita, her friend Jonathan McIntosh and other sjw are trying to force game developers to make games according to how they think they should be made to fit a "feminist" view. If she really cared, she would make her own games how she wants to make them. However it takes less effort to be a sjw and make false claims for a conclusion you have already created before hand.
Whether trying to remove games or force game developers to make games how she wants them to be made is really no difference. Both stifle free speech. Games as a whole are not there to push a social agenda but if Anita and Jonathan have their way...then say good by to fun in gaming.

Explain what you mean by 'forcing' games to be made their way.

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":386xeaci]

noops[/url]":386xeaci]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":386xeaci]

noops[/url]":386xeaci]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":386xeaci]This should be unbiased. It's not like her last videos were chock full of cherry picked and out of context points to create evidence to fit her conclusion. A conclusion she never had created before looking at the facts...oh wait.
She's the feminist version of Jack Thompson. For you kiddies out there Google him.

Oh she is trying to use the legal system to literally remove games from store shelves?

She is the female, feminist version of Jack Thompson in that her argument is she claims that video games have caused and continue to cause misogyny in society. This is false. If violent video games don't make you more violent (Jack Thompsons claim was that they do) then they also cannot make you a misogynistic and thus perpetuate so called misogyny in society.
Games can't cause you to be more violent but cause cause you to be misogynist? That is illogical.
Anita, her friend Jonathan McIntosh and other sjw are trying to force game developers to make games according to how they think they should be made to fit a "feminist" view. If she really cared, she would make her own games how she wants to make them. However it takes less effort to be a sjw and make false claims for a conclusion you have already created before hand.
Whether trying to remove games or force game developers to make games how she wants them to be made is really no difference. Both stifle free speech. Games as a whole are not there to push a social agenda but if Anita and Jonathan have their way...then say good by to fun in gaming.

Explain what you mean by 'forcing' games to be made their way.

Using the bias media and social pressure. We see it already with media, providing false narratives to sway public opinion. Look at the piece by ABC talking about GTA V with Anita. It is completely one sided and they present her argument for her. Back when Jack Thompson did it, it was about the violence itself. The interviewer actually pointed out how violent crimes were on the decline (and seemingly at the same time that violent video games were on the rise). With Anita's claim it's suppose to be misogynist and promoting violence against women (despite the fact that you can kill everyone else as well..that you will get the cops on your ass if you do...etc) yet the interviewer NEVER points out how violence against women in the USA is down significantly or how come we don't have a huge spike in prostitutes being murdered since its release (@ 33million copies sold, if her argument holds water we should be seeing changes) then asks her to explain that like they did with Jack.
Jack and Anita are the same in the regard about how games affect society but are just using different vehicles.

I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

 

[noops]

D_K_night[/url]":j1xdyen8]I'm a male who is harassed repeatedly on the internet. Can I go to Anita to help me?

That's what I want to know.

There aren't many details just going off of this article. However, it mentions 'gendered harassment' so perhaps this would include men receiving gendered harassment.

Is the harassment you receive because you are a male?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":bs5kmwl4]

noops[/url]":bs5kmwl4]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":g51dmoms]

tjones2[/url]":g51dmoms]
I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Are we still repeating the positive reviews talking point? And of course when concerned with journalistic ethics you want to attack the non-journalist, right?

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":8pky6s8q]

aleph_nought[/url]":8pky6s8q]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

I disagree. Telling someone to not play something is hardly comparable to Thompson who wanted to use the legal system to actually prevent you from choosing to play something.

Who are you referring to anyways that is saying to stop playing something?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":ha5vqh0v]

noops[/url]":ha5vqh0v]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":ha5vqh0v]

noops[/url]":ha5vqh0v]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

Companies have the freedom to choose who they associate their name with. If something comes to light about a company A that is true and company B doesn't want to be associated with that, is their choice to remove their name from it.
If you assume that a company like Intel would remove advertising solely based on a few emails, then you clearly have no business sense. They obviously would have looked long and hard into the claims.

They didn't look long and hard into it. The admitted it was made in haste and a mistake. They restored advertising. They also appear to be directly supporting FemFreq based on recent presentations.

Do you really think it was only a few emails they received? There was an entire operation to send lots of emails and to not mention gamergate; because even back then GG realized how toxic it would be to associate with gamergate.

With regards to 'forcing' and removing advertising: I was not referring to forcing advertisers to remove ads. I was referring to using the threat of advertising money to adjust the content of the website.

This seems to be the exact opposite of what gamergate supposedly wants: ethics in gaming journalism. If your content is tailored to appease your advertisers, how is that a good thing?

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":2h4efmta]

noops[/url]":2h4efmta]

TK[/url]":2h4efmta]

aleph_nought[/url]":2h4efmta]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

I disagree. Telling someone to not play something is hardly comparable to Thompson who wanted to use the legal system to actually prevent you from choosing to play something.

Who are you referring to anyways that is saying to stop playing something?

... read the text you quoted? And that I was replying to? Emphasizing in case you missed it:

I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

I did miss it; I thought you were referring to Anita telling people to stop playing these games. Anyways, my point still stands: telling someone not to play something and trying to use the legal system to prevent you from even having the option to play is drastically different.

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":3dehni8j]

noops[/url]":3dehni8j]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":3dehni8j]

tjones2[/url]":3dehni8j]
I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Are we still repeating the positive reviews talking point? And of course when concerned with journalistic ethics you want to attack the non-journalist, right?

If you read the whole post threat you would know I was responding to his claims about GG, I did not bring up GG as she is not related to GG. I am not attacking her, I am criticizing her ideas.

Who brought up positive reviews?

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":uvjl84u5]Oh no doubt, we agree on that, but I also have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so. (Thompson pretty much got any attempt to regulate games based on their content shot down on first amendment grounds while he was flailing about though, so that door remains permanently closed.)

I still place them both in the same category of horrible human beings. That being, self-interested agenda pushers with a tenuous connection to facts, logic, and basic honesty.

You needn't abuse the legal system to put propaganda in people's minds.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That's all I get from your post. You have no doubt they would use the legal system based on ...?

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":2jt2dt8v]

noops[/url]":2jt2dt8v]

TK[/url]":2jt2dt8v]Oh no doubt, we agree on that, but I also have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so. (Thompson pretty much got any attempt to regulate games based on their content shot down on first amendment grounds while he was flailing about though, so that door remains permanently closed.)

I still place them both in the same category of horrible human beings. That being, self-interested agenda pushers with a tenuous connection to facts, logic, and basic honesty.

You needn't abuse the legal system to put propaganda in people's minds.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That's all I get from your post. You have no doubt they would use the legal system based on ...?

A hunch and experience. Seriously, please read posts before quoting them and replying to them, that's twice in this thread. I already said:

have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so.

Hard to sow fear about something that can't actually happen.

Anyways, someone who has no issue abusing basic logic and making outright fabrications based on an ideological position, usually, has no issues forcing that view on others.

But, that's just my opinion. Not FUD, because as I said, that's not a thing that ever can happen in our legal climate, but that is the kind of person I think she is.

This "pivot" mentioned in the headline, I see as a completely self-serving person trying to cash in, literally, on outrage.

If it's not legally feasible and it's just based on a hunch, why bring it up? Surely you have some intent behind your accusation? It's a rather serious accusation too. It seems your intent is to paint someone in the worst light possible based on a hunch and something that isn't legally feasible as you put it.

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":28etouci]

noops[/url]":28etouci]If it's not legally feasible and it's just based on a hunch, why bring it up? Surely you have some intent behind your accusation? It's a rather serious accusation too. It seems your intent is to paint someone in the worst light possible based on a hunch and something that isn't legally feasible as you put it.

Oh for the love of.. I just made my "intent" very clear. Here, let me break it down to an easily digestible chunk for you:

Anita is a shitty enough of a human being that I, personally, don't think she would have any qualms about abusing the legal system to shut down artwork she doesn't like were there a way to actually do so. I base this evaluation on the fact that her arguments are misleading, if not outright fabricated whole cloth in many cases, and my personal experience is that (ideological base) + (tenuous connection to facts) + (dishonesty) = willingness to force your views on others.

Is this clear enough for you? Am I required to have any "intent" beyond expressing disgust at the amount of glorification this scam artist gets?

Thanks. It's much more clear when you express your intent is to make baseless accusations towards a person you are disgusted with.

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":1raumbtc]

noops[/url]":1raumbtc]Thanks. It's much more clear when you express your intent is to make baseless accusations towards a person you are disgusted with.

If that's how you choose to characterize it. Pretty hard to accuse someone of something they couldn't do even if they wanted to, I think I've made my point clear enough, and you're just being rather obtuse about this entire thing.

Here's a hint - thinking that someone is messed in the head enough to do X is not an accusation that they are doing X.

Toodles

I have a hunch TK would use the legal system to silence Anita but it isn't legally feasible. Hunches are fun! Your hunch is based on jack shit; just like mine.

 

[noops]

bickle2[/url]":4g5dcy1q]

RFT[/url]":4g5dcy1q]

We're still waiting with bated breath for your proof of 1a) and b). Oh, wait, we're not. Insert "OP is surely going to deliver" meme here.

I already did, or is your religion failing to allow you to read? She knew there was no threat, lied and made $400,000 and got on all kinds of TV shows. It's all documented.

I th ight you were blocking me?

That's some fine lawyering there, chief.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":377bly74]
lol, just because it seems you don't know the difference between the two...LIBEL is written or printed defamation, and SLANDER is spoken defamation.....luckily, neither are applicable to what i said, as she IS dishonest, manipulative, and delusional.

In the context of law, yes. But surely you know that. Or are you assuming this is a court room?

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":1hr2nwng]never said it was her fault that people donated more than she asked for. i was just pointing out that it was a thing that happened....on top of that, if she only needed 6 grand to make the series, and she got 25 times that, then there should have been ZERO issues making the series.

my only point was that she raised more than enough money to do the thing she said she was gonna do...2 years later, it's only like half done, and she's begging for more money.....after having just been paid a shitload of money for CANCELING a scheduled talk.....just seems a little...dishonest...

and the thing that's so disgusting, is that i, apparently, can't even suggest that anything she does, seems the least bit sleazy, or dishonest, without getting both barrels in the face, from a bunch of her fans...

None of this makes her deserving of the vitriolic hate she has been receiving for years.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":nzpapfvt]

noops[/url]":nzpapfvt]

NumberYellow[/url]":nzpapfvt]
lol, just because it seems you don't know the difference between the two...LIBEL is written or printed defamation, and SLANDER is spoken defamation.....luckily, neither are applicable to what i said, as she IS dishonest, manipulative, and delusional.

In the context of law, yes. But surely you know that. Or are you assuming this is a court room?

how about in the context of the friggin' dictionary?

So you are saying slanderous can only mean spoken defamation?

 

[noops]

Drakkenmensch[/url]":3jfutdzj]

noops[/url]":3jfutdzj]

NumberYellow[/url]":3jfutdzj]

noops[/url]":3jfutdzj]

NumberYellow[/url]":3jfutdzj]
lol, just because it seems you don't know the difference between the two...LIBEL is written or printed defamation, and SLANDER is spoken defamation.....luckily, neither are applicable to what i said, as she IS dishonest, manipulative, and delusional.

In the context of law, yes. But surely you know that. Or are you assuming this is a court room?

how about in the context of the friggin' dictionary?

So you are saying slanderous can only mean spoken defamation?

Well, he's right on that one specific point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscaGDxuQqE

I don't doubt that in the context of a legal setting the distinction is important. But in casual conversation I don't see a problem.

 

[noops]

bickle2[/url]":1y0bkzdc]

Gary Patterson[/url]":1y0bkzdc]

NumberYellow[/url]":1y0bkzdc]
in any event, i've seen information that suggests that even her "research" was shoddy, and made up of biased sources...i know you don't know me from adam, but i don't talk out of my ass...if i'm commenting on something, it's because i have looked into it, and have an informed opinion about the thing i'm commenting on..

On the Internet, no-one will believe you without sources. You've made claims like the one above a number of times, but they're devoid of sources. Can you post them? You'll have a much stronger position to argue from.

A great deal what she says is crib from her feminist sources, specifically quotes like objects or acted upon", she Kriger footage from a great our places, and she wildly misrepresents the context of anything such as in the infamous hitmen video. It's highly questionable, given her extreme lack of knowledge about videogames in general, her on camera admission she doesn't play games, whether she actually even plays any of them when not on camera.

I find creative tape like Ron Moores space show highly offensive, and u guarantee you I will burn every asset for it in the highly unlikely event I buy Universal. But I also watched every single episode, so I could intelligently critique exactly why I found it so offensive. The same with JJTrek.

The fact that she won't take questions in any form is the most telling f all, because based on her performance when interviewers have asked her direct off script questions, and her inability in her talks to keep more than two lines in her head without looking at a teleprompter, it's very safe to say she has very little knowledge, and is just a talking head for her boyfriend, existing as a parasite in a soft target where she would meet little resistance for her larger radical feminist agenda.

All of this is talkingpoints.txt so who are you a talking head for?

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":qm0okwxz]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":qm0okwxz]
That the male character has no gender signaling at all but the "female" character _requires_ some sort of gender signaling. It's a fairly standard "person is assumed male unless otherwise designated" sexist thing.

untrue....men, stereotypically, are expected to be tall, and muscular, among other things....why is it that we men aren't bitching about objectification, and gender stereotypes, and sexism?

It's not that pigtails, makeup and painted nails are bad, it's that when your character looks exactly like the male characters EXCEPT for those signifiers we should be asking why that is.

lazy design?

I personally see men complain about this all the time. Especially in the dating world where men feel disadvantaged for their height and other masculine expectations.

And 'bitching' was a particularly ironic choice of words but I won't leap to say that was intentional.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":rswmiwkf]

noops[/url]":rswmiwkf]

NumberYellow[/url]":rswmiwkf]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":rswmiwkf]
That the male character has no gender signaling at all but the "female" character _requires_ some sort of gender signaling. It's a fairly standard "person is assumed male unless otherwise designated" sexist thing.

untrue....men, stereotypically, are expected to be tall, and muscular, among other things....why is it that we men aren't bitching about objectification, and gender stereotypes, and sexism?

It's not that pigtails, makeup and painted nails are bad, it's that when your character looks exactly like the male characters EXCEPT for those signifiers we should be asking why that is.

lazy design?

I personally see men complain about this all the time. Especially in the dating world where men feel disadvantaged for their height and other masculine expectations.

And 'bitching' was a particularly ironic choice of words but I won't leap to say that was intentional.

would you prefer i used, "whinging", or "complaining", or "moaning"? what word would be more acceptable?

Well, a bitch is a female dog and is often used in reference to women. So I would say complaining is a good choice of words. Again, I don't necessarily think you intentionally used a typically gendered slur but in the context of feminism I found it ironic.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":1djt9v94]

noops[/url]":1djt9v94]

NumberYellow[/url]":1djt9v94]

noops[/url]":1djt9v94]

NumberYellow[/url]":1djt9v94]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":1djt9v94]
That the male character has no gender signaling at all but the "female" character _requires_ some sort of gender signaling. It's a fairly standard "person is assumed male unless otherwise designated" sexist thing.

untrue....men, stereotypically, are expected to be tall, and muscular, among other things....why is it that we men aren't bitching about objectification, and gender stereotypes, and sexism?

It's not that pigtails, makeup and painted nails are bad, it's that when your character looks exactly like the male characters EXCEPT for those signifiers we should be asking why that is.

lazy design?

I personally see men complain about this all the time. Especially in the dating world where men feel disadvantaged for their height and other masculine expectations.

And 'bitching' was a particularly ironic choice of words but I won't leap to say that was intentional.

would you prefer i used, "whinging", or "complaining", or "moaning"? what word would be more acceptable?

Well, a bitch is a female dog and is often used in reference to women. So I would say complaining is a good choice of words. Again, I don't necessarily think you intentionally used a typically gendered slur but in the context of feminism I found it ironic.

see this? that's that bullshit i was talkin' about....

"bitching" is a commonly used term for complaining....you see a "gendered slur", i see "complaining" everyone's too goddamn sensitive, and sees attacks where none exist, and are just LOOKING for things to be offended by...

I said I found it ironic in the context of discussing gender issues. You did say men aren't bitching (so women are bitching).

I didn't say I was offended, or that it was an attack.

Speaking of looking for things to be offended by I see a lot of that in the criticism of Anita. Look how many times people think she is labelling them misogynistic, horrible people for playing some of the games she has criticized for using tropes.

 

[noops]

bickle2[/url]":tyjosgs5]No, I'm saying that Anita's very favorite show creator uses ass the tropes in her playbook of misogyny, but it's not misogyny when Joss does it. Thunderfoot spends twenty minutes citing example after example of things that are evil in games according to Anita, but it's not misogyny when Joss does it.

This is known as "grand hypocrisy".

Oh, where does she say it's not misogyny when Joss does it? Where, even, does she say it is evil? Or misogyny?

 

[noops]

bickle2[/url]":ya6blgi4]Note the behavior of the religious fundamentalist. Like creationists, Anita followers refuse to examine evidence, and become increasingly defensive and entrenched the more they're proven wrong, declaring in this instance a "non-answer" and "insane ranting"

This is precisely what Anita dies, she blocks criticism in even the most controlled circumstances like an open microphone after a talk. This is what cowards and frauds do, as this individual is certainly a supporter of. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind say the same stuff about evolution, but it still diesnt make it true

Care to respond to my last questions?

 

[noops]

bickle2 refuses to engage their critics and answer questions such as:

"Oh, where does she say it's not misogyny when Joss does it? Where, even, does she say it is evil? Or misogyny?"

Why does bickle2 refuse to engage critics of their posts?

Is it because it has gone off script?

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":3tmd31um]
ok, but i don't care about the first post...i didn't make it, i didn't echo the sentiment, and i have nothing to do with it....i mean, have i given you any reason to believe that i'm actually angry with Anita Sarkeesian, the human being? or that i have a problem with her having an opinion?

So what does Anita have to do with the videos you posted? I can't watch them right now and you didn't give a gist of what they are.

 

[noops]

The hate started before she even released a video. The mere thought that she would dare to examine sexism in games was enough to launch a hate mob.

 

[noops]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":1d3niaq0]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1d3niaq0]

Did you miss the whole GTA V being removed from Australia Targets and Kmarts?

Stores have the right to decide what items they will carry.

And funnily enough I recall channers/gaters/trolls brigading the petition, signing it, and thus helping to fulfill their own prophecy.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":1a5y4vx4]

i'm still confused....the whole "gamergate" title seems to have been hijacked, and now has NOTHING to do with it's original meaning/purpose/use...so, now, instead of referring to a scandal about alleged journalistic integrity issues in the gaming press, it's now it's own movement, and is about hating feminists?

correct me if i'm wrong....this stuff really is confusing, and just seems completely idiotic, and superfluous to me..like what's the fucking point of it all? does anyone even know anymore?

The original purpose was to organize a campaign against Zoe Quinn. The journalistic ethics was a smoke screen. This was discussed very early on. Because if it was about journalistic ethics they would be going after the journalists, no?

If you follow gamergate meeting grounds it's very clear that this is not simply about ethics in games journalism; it's also about feminist influence and critique of video games. Gamergate thinks they represent gamers; they think they are the majority voice. Yet they also think feminists have control of the media and are trying to shape games and make gamers look bad. Sadly, this sect of gamers have done everything in their power to reinforce the negative stereotypes of gamers by their overreaction.

Yes, it isn't fair to be labelled a part of gamergate due to disagreeing with Anita; the hate train for her started well before gamergate. But she is definitely someone they love to hate. How does she tie into ethics in games journalism? Who knows.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":18nk5wnl]

noops[/url]":18nk5wnl]

NumberYellow[/url]":18nk5wnl]

i'm still confused....the whole "gamergate" title seems to have been hijacked, and now has NOTHING to do with it's original meaning/purpose/use...so, now, instead of referring to a scandal about alleged journalistic integrity issues in the gaming press, it's now it's own movement, and is about hating feminists?

correct me if i'm wrong....this stuff really is confusing, and just seems completely idiotic, and superfluous to me..like what's the fucking point of it all? does anyone even know anymore?

The original purpose was to organize a campaign against Zoe Quinn. The journalistic ethics was a smoke screen. This was discussed very early on. Because if it was about journalistic ethics they would be going after the journalists, no?

If you follow gamergate meeting grounds it's very clear that this is not simply about ethics in games journalism; it's also about feminist influence and critique of video games. Gamergate thinks they represent gamers; they think they are the majority voice. Yet they also think feminists have control of the media and are trying to shape games and make gamers look bad. Sadly, this sect of gamers have done everything in their power to reinforce the negative stereotypes of gamers by their overreaction.

Yes, it isn't fair to be labelled a part of gamergate due to disagreeing with Anita; the hate train for her started well before gamergate. But she is definitely someone they love to hate. How does she tie into ethics in games journalism? Who knows.

ok....

i mean, i know i'm not the majority, but i can say for certain that they don't represent me.

i don't think feminists control the media, but there are a few examples of a certain degree of censorship being employed against dissenting opinions. like, twitter, and tumblr, for instance..and while it's not ALL about anita, yeah, she seems to have become the most well-known figure in the conflict.

my whole thing though is what the fuck's the point? is it possible that perhaps both sides have been fighting for so long that they no longer know why they're fighting anymore? is it possible that now, things have become so confused, and convoluted, that it's now more a matter of principle, than one of actually standing for something specific?

Hmm, what censorship on twitter and tumblr?

As for the conflict I'm not sure there are two sides. Gamergate has no leaders and poorly defined goals that seem to change who ever you ask. You could maybe say the same about those against gamer gate. However, the anti-GG group probably wouldn't exist if GG didn't exist.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":qrdqu9sg]as to censorship...i've seen things like comments being deleted, comments being turned off, accounts being banned....and not all because of any kind of violent threats either....

You specifically mentioned Twitter and Tumblr; can you expand? Where are you getting this information? You've seen it? How long and where have you been following this? Are we still talking about Anita?

As for comments being turned off... are you referring to Anita and youtube? Have you seen what the comments section looks like when she has them enabled? It's complete garbage and people spewing hate.

Also, how is that censorship anyways? No one owes you a platform.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":1s3nmkab]
regardless of what comes up in the comments, it's not hurting anyone...who is being harmed by random word on a screen? turning off comments basically says "i don't give a shit what you think", or "your opinion has no value to me"....just rubs me the wrong way.

how is it censorship? well, turning comments off isn't censorship per-se...maybe pre-emptive censorship? but deleting comments, or getting people banned..that's censorship....now, before you counter with the obvious, i'm not talking about cases where people have said vile, rude, disgusting, abusive, or threatening things....

You can find what you are missing here: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/0 ... n-youtube/

And it isn't really your place to say it is not hurting anyone. It's probably easy to judge when it's not directed at you and you don't have to live with it for _years_.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":1wyb960q]

noops[/url]":1wyb960q]

NumberYellow[/url]":1wyb960q]
regardless of what comes up in the comments, it's not hurting anyone...who is being harmed by random word on a screen? turning off comments basically says "i don't give a shit what you think", or "your opinion has no value to me"....just rubs me the wrong way.

how is it censorship? well, turning comments off isn't censorship per-se...maybe pre-emptive censorship? but deleting comments, or getting people banned..that's censorship....now, before you counter with the obvious, i'm not talking about cases where people have said vile, rude, disgusting, abusive, or threatening things....

You can find what you are missing here: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/0 ... n-youtube/

And it isn't really your place to say it is not hurting anyone. It's probably easy to judge when it's not directed at you and you don't have to live with it for _years_.

is it possible for you to provide me with a different source?

What is wrong with the source? She just posted the youtube comments unedited. What other source would there be?

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":1d1y6nnj]

noops[/url]":1d1y6nnj]
What is wrong with the source? She just posted the youtube comments unedited. What other source would there be?

because i'd like information from multiple sources.

as to what you did provide...not all of those comments were bad. yeah, the majority of them were, but still, how is the deluge of verbal diarrhea she documented, any different from pretty much, ANY youtube video out there?

i see shit like this ALL OVER youtube....it's youtube...not exactly a concourse for aspiring mensa members..

I agree youtube comments suck so really what's the loss in disabling comments? Why should someone endure it because that's just the way it is? Why is it that way anyways?

I really hate the dismissive "welcome to the internet" argument.

I don't have another source which illustrates the youtube comments on Anita's video. I don't really see a need for one unless you think she is making this all up.

 

[noops]

NumberYellow[/url]":10qc856k]

noops[/url]":10qc856k]
I agree youtube comments suck so really what's the loss in disabling comments? Why should someone endure it because that's just the way it is? Why is it that way anyways?

i don't know that "endure" is really the most appropriate word to use....i mean, that word's typically used to describe the experience of some kind of hardship. i don't think that anyone's "enduring" anything, as it pertains to youtube comments....it's stupid people saying stupid things on a website...when i see that sort of thing, i either ignore it, or attempt to engage in rational conversation...but only if i believe there exists, the remotest of chances that i might get something out of them, other than some ham-fisted, dribbling, mindfuck of a reply.

simply disabling comments, before anyone's even had a chance to say anything, really does smack of pretentiousness, to me...it's a declaration of "no matter what you have to say, i'm not interested"...as if nobody has any business voicing an opinion....it doesn't say to me "i want to have a conversation".

I really hate the dismissive "welcome to the internet" argument.

as much as it seems like a copout, it's actually more genuine than anything one could hope to come up with. what i mean by that, is that the internet is truly a global marketplace of ideas...assuming you're not living in a country that censors the shit out of the internet, you can go to pretty much any news site, blog, video site, etc, and voice your opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc....good, bad, or neutral, everyone gets a chance to be heard....and yes, the internet is full of stupid people, and yes, sometimes, they say very stupid things. this is the nature of this beautiful creation of ours...

I don't have another source which illustrates the youtube comments on Anita's video. I don't really see a need for one unless you think she is making this all up.

no, i'm not suggesting she made it up...the screenshot is very clear evidence of that....but i don't like relying on singular sources for my information....in order to create a credible intellignece profile on any given subject, you collect information on that subject from multiple sources, and then through comparison, and cross-referencing, you are better able to sort out what fact, and what is fiction, and get a better, clearer picture of the situation as a whole.

this is how i operate. i read everything i can, from all sides...somewhere at their intersection, lies the truth....

Like all the sources for your claims about censorship on Twitter and Tumblr? I asked where you were getting this and your response was "I had heard of it". Doesn't sound terribly rigorous to me.

And when I say 'endure' I am referring to Anita who is the person they are calling any number of slurs. Why should she enable comments on her video just to have all that garbage there? Do you think she would enjoy reading through a garbage pile to find the small number of reasonable responses?

I can't believe we are arguing the value of youtube comments and judging someone for disabling them.