#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's not mince words, you know what I meant. Games are Dead vs Gamers are Over is a small difference and the overall end result is the same. You're declaring a group of diverse individuals is "done" because as we all know in logical arguments "One bad apple spoils the bunch!"

I mean based on that rhetoric we should just give up on humanity already. Humans are over, there's so many jerks out there, there's no hope. Bring on the next species, ours is over.
You're still doing it. It's "gamers are dead" vs "'Gamers' are over." You still keep forgetting the quotes. Her point was that gamers (without the quotes) are a group of diverse individuals. Her point is that publishers should be broader and their focus. Her point is not "some of the bunch are spoiled," it was "they do not represent all gamers, expand your focus"
 
Look, Ricothemad, if a person covers GG and tries to defend the movement by downplaying or ignoring the harassment produced by some of its members, then that person is implcitly legitimizing that harassment.

Erik Kain is such a person. And Total Biscuit as well. Probably others.
 
Their support list continues to shrink as Shacknews weighs in.

Opinion: 'GamerGate' Legitimacy is an Illusion
You can't turn GamerGate legitimate. Any attempts to do so will only continue the smokescreen that is still allowing bigots to get away with death threats and hostility. You need to abandon them, leave them to fend for their own hate, and let the views espoused by a small group of cynical misogynists shrivel up on their own. Find a new banner that's based on inclusion, on welcoming more voices into gaming, on being unafraid of change. Then, continue asking journalists the hard questions. The very moment that one of the bigots from the old movement tries to join your new one, make sure he knows that his kind is not welcome. Not now, not ever.
 
Eh the "crucify me" thing doesn't really bother me, dude's just being a goof there.

What I don't like from Jerry is the "I grieve for the ones who tried to do it right. When your media doesn’t represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media." When these #gg clowns "go their own way" as he calls on them to do, I'll be disappointed if that way is anywhere other than a long way off a short pier.

It would be great if that's what they wanted. Don't go to Rock Paper Shotgun. Cool. Tell your friends how much RPS sucks. That's cool too. Write a giant blog post about how crappy RPS is. Cool, whatever. But creating campaigns to email the advertisers of RPS that tell them they won't buy their products unless they stop advertising there. Really? If Rock Paper Shotgun wanted to make every single article from now on about feminism... what would really be wrong with that?
 
Then I guess it's good she never said that? The title is: 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.

Note the quote around 'gamers' to delineate gamers as people from 'gamers' the marketing term a la 'GamerGrub'. Jeff Gersmann makes a very similar point to Leigh Alexander right here with different words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apBnWCYSYCM&t=1h42m

How do you feel when he says it? Listen to a few minutes of his conversation. You see how he hates the word gamer too, gamer is a thing marketers use to tell Mountain Dew. It's very close to what Leigh was saying.

A la:

sI8ziz0.gif

Pretty funny image :-)

I disagree though. Despite the quotes or whatever personal meaning the authors may have towards the word 'Gamer' it's been part of the culture and the web for a long time. I see people describe themselves as a 'gamer' in many places online, and yes, some of these are women too, and they don't consume 'The Dew'.

I think Leigh's was an inflamatory piece meant to hurt people. So was the avalanche of interestingly timed articles that came about at the same time shouting the same message.

Do I agree that every 'gamer' plays COD and drinks Dew and Doritos and Hot Pockets? I do not. Regardless of the connotation someone wants to apply to the term, it would be no better for me to say something like "movie buffs are basement dwellers who binge on netflix" and then try to specify 'Oh but by "movie buff" meant X, you shouldn't feel insulted"

You don't get to use attention grabbing headlines and then not be held accountable because you add a footnote. Sorry, but I disagree with that idea.
 
Look, Ricothemad, if a person covers GG and tries to defend the movement by downplaying or ignoring the harassment produced by some of its members, then that person is implcitly legitimizing that harassment.
While this is all completely true, even without the harassment, one huge arm of it is still based on the faulty idea that the media was attacking gamers.
 
I don't. And I've never said all the games media is hopelessly corrupt. Not too many pages back, I made a list, which contained some media sites I enjoy, who I feel are pretty honest and transparent.

I still enjoy content from other developers from Gamasutra though. See? Not painting with that brush of generalization.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, sir. Merely pointing our the statements and actions of the general #GamerGate hashtag.

Let's not mince words, you know what I meant. Games are Dead vs Gamers are Over is a small difference and the overall end result is the same. You're declaring a group of diverse individuals is "done" because as we all know in logical arguments "One bad apple spoils the bunch!"

I mean based on that rhetoric we should just give up on humanity already. Humans are over, there's so many jerks out there, there's no hope. Bring on the next species, ours is over.

Actually she establishes in the previous sentence that it's a demographic label. She sets up the focus on the label and the demographics, and clearly states developers don't have to focus on that specific area anymore.

But carry on, sir. You seem like a nice guy overall.
 
Let's not mince words, you know what I meant. Games are Dead vs Gamers are Over is a small difference and the overall end result is the same. You're declaring a group of diverse individuals is "done" because as we all know in logical arguments "One bad apple spoils the bunch!"

I mean based on that rhetoric we should just give up on humanity already. Humans are over, there's so many jerks out there, there's no hope. Bring on the next species, ours is over.

It was an obvious click-bait headline. It worked, because it got people to read the article.

Honestly anyone who took great offense at that article and felt like they were personally attacked, and then proceeded to boycott her and anyone who supports her followed by making death & rape threats against her, needs to seriously settle down and not get so worked up.

Read the article, think "hmm do I do these things, is she talking about me?" if no then you can ignore it. When someone says "gamers do this thing" they don't mean literally 100%, they mean "several gamers do this thing".

In the end, a person wrote an article stating an opinion. Big deal. I don't see why people got so worked up over this. But apparently it was a huge threat and "gamers" had to come out and defend their hobby. I think they have just brought more attention to the issues at hand and actually increased the chances of changes occurring in the gaming industry. The kind of changes they do not want.
 
Pretty funny image :-)

I disagree though. Despite the quotes or whatever personal meaning the authors may have towards the word 'Gamer' it's been part of the culture and the web for a long time. I see people describe themselves as a 'gamer' in many places online, and yes, some of these are women too, and they don't consume 'The Dew'.

I think Leigh's was an inflamatory piece meant to hurt people. So was the avalanche of interestingly timed articles that came about at the same time shouting the same message.

Do I agree that every 'gamer' plays COD and drinks Dew and Doritos and Hot Pockets? I do not. Regardless of the connotation someone wants to apply to the term, it would be no better for me to say something like "movie buffs are basement dwellers who binge on netflix" and then try to specify 'Oh but by "movie buff" meant X, you shouldn't feel insulted"

You don't get to use attention grabbing headlines and then not be held accountable because you add a footnote. Sorry, but I disagree with that idea.
The marketers are the one that promote and pander to this image. Leigh was telling people that gamers are more than that. You missed the point so much.
 
Pretty funny image :-)

I disagree though. Despite the quotes or whatever personal meaning the authors may have towards the word 'Gamer' it's been part of the culture and the web for a long time. I see people describe themselves as a 'gamer' in many places online, and yes, some of these are women too, and they don't consume 'The Dew'.

I think Leigh's was an inflamatory piece meant to hurt people. So was the avalanche of interestingly timed articles that came about at the same time shouting the same message.

Do I agree that every 'gamer' plays COD and drinks Dew and Doritos and Hot Pockets? I do not. Regardless of the connotation someone wants to apply to the term, it would be no better for me to say something like "movie buffs are basement dwellers who binge on netflix" and then try to specify 'Oh but by "movie buff" meant X, you shouldn't feel insulted"

You don't get to use attention grabbing headlines and then not be held accountable because you add a footnote. Sorry, but I disagree with that idea.

You know.... That was Leah's whole point, right? You agree with her completely! You and her have the same ideals about this issue.
 
Eh the "crucify me" thing doesn't really bother me, dude's just being a goof there.

What I don't like from Jerry is the "I grieve for the ones who tried to do it right. When your media doesn’t represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media." When these #gg clowns "go their own way" as he calls on them to do, I'll be disappointed if that way is anywhere other than a long way off a short pier.

I think he's saying "if you don't like what you see from the media you consume, start your own / make your own instead of sending death threats to people." Which makes sense, seeing as they actually tried to do that with the Penny Arcade Report. PA believes that Ben Kuchera is someone that could represent the best in video game journalism; so take that for what it is worth.
 
History can help you more than me.
Western society is built on people standing up to threats.

Just google in Malala Yousafzai or any gay right activists if you want more recent events instead of depending on past events from the history book.
These people are currently standing up to what they believe and don't care about death threats.
You must have courage if you want to put up a fight about inequality.

We are talking about a civilised country with a state of law. It's Anita's right, and everyone else, to talk freely and without fear for their own life. Threats should be dealt by authorities and people safeness ensured. Threats were issued to the University too, students, or any attendee were object of this threat. Stop talking nonsense.
 
Pretty funny image :-)

I disagree though. Despite the quotes or whatever personal meaning the authors may have towards the word 'Gamer' it's been part of the culture and the web for a long time. I see people describe themselves as a 'gamer' in many places online, and yes, some of these are women too, and they don't consume 'The Dew'.

I think Leigh's was an inflamatory piece meant to hurt people. So was the avalanche of interestingly timed articles that came about at the same time shouting the same message.

Do I agree that every 'gamer' plays COD and drinks Dew and Doritos and Hot Pockets? I do not. Regardless of the connotation someone wants to apply to the term, it would be no better for me to say something like "movie buffs are basement dwellers who binge on netflix" and then try to specify 'Oh but by "movie buff" meant X, you shouldn't feel insulted"

You don't get to use attention grabbing headlines and then not be held accountable because you add a footnote. Sorry, but I disagree with that idea.

Again. I've said this, I think, half a dozen times.

I'm a pro wrestling fan. When somebody says pro wrestling fans have problems with sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia, and other various other issues, thanks in part due to their socioeconomic status and also due to the internal issues within the business, I don't get upset.

Because it's true. A lot of people who play games are assholes. A lot of people who like pro wrestling are assholes. You no more need to defend the people who play games who are assholes and conform to the stereotype than I need to defend every pro wrestling fan who is a toothless yokel who thinks John Cena is "gay."
 
I just realized the main journalistic ethics thread was closed. Is this the only thread left to discuss topics like that? Getting tired of all GamerGate, all the time
 
I just realized the main journalistic ethics thread was closed. Is this the only thread left to discuss topics like that? Getting tired of all GamerGate, all the time

No, because the mods believe that such a topic would still be consumed by GamerGate stuff, meaning they'd have to watch two topics instead of one.
 
You know.... That was Leah's whole point right? You agree with her completely! You and her have the same ideals about this issue.

We do. I never said I disagreed with the idea that gamers area diverse group of people. That's entirely the reason why I found that article and headline in bad taste!

We *all* know this (that gamers are diverse). Gamasutra *is not* a site read by non-industry, non-gamer people. Therefore, by using that tag, she was deliberate in her goal to get clicks by using inflammatory remarks. Is this the kind of writing we want to see? Is this not why Polygon is joked about in GAF from time to time?
 
While this is all completely true, even without the harassment, one huge arm of it is still based on the faulty idea that the media was attacking gamers.

That's more of the recruitment line version; the basis is still simply that feminism and women are ruining the tech industry and games (via media bias, vaginal corruption, and general sensitivity)
 
you know I don't want to say that Leigh Alexander was right because I think her rhetoric was way too vitriolic and that she is guilty of contributing to the same toxicity that plagues much of the online discourse in games, but she was right. The only way to get through this thing is to stop attaching so much value to this identity that's as meaningless as saying you like to watch movies or read books. So many people play games now that it's a pointless distinction.

Anyway, this is a great thread.

Yah, like I said a few hours ago, I feel she was emotional and hasty when writing the article, so not only was she misinterpreted by people already filled with that GG vitriol, she wrote it with some of that vitriol too. If she waited a bit for Gamergate and herself to cool down, I feel this situation would have been much smaller. As it was posted, it just made Gamergaters angrier and confused many other people, myself included, about why she would write an article that insulted and alienated her primary audience, especially on Gamasutra where pretty much the only people that would read it are gamers.

I'm going to dispute your assertion, though, I think using gamer as an identify is fine, ave the team itself doesn't really need to change, since it's definition has already sort of changed organically. Gamer used to simply mean someone who plays games, but that's from a time when the only people that played games were dedicated to it. Now that games are more widespread accessible, the term gamer is used as an identity for those who are truly passionate about games. You never hear the people that only play Candy Crush or Farmville calling themselves gamers, the people that use the identity are those that are dedicated to games, the people that will play for hours at a time, but not stop there. A gamer is someone for whom a game's experience goes beyond the game, when they aren't playing they'll be talking about the game, or reading about, they'll be looking for information about the development, trying to figure out the optimal way to play. A gamer is someone who lives games. It's the same as someone calling themselves a film buff or a foodie. Sure, nearly everyone watches movies and everyone eats food, but not everyone calls themselves these terms. Both of them are identifies of someone who dedicated themself too the intricacies of movies or food and uses their passion as an identity. All of these terms, gamer included, are used by people that don't just enjoy these things, but they communicate and connect with people that share that same passion. And I'm not talking only about multiplayer games, but any game that prior discuss beyond "Hey, have you played x game? I did too."

That being said, we as a community have to, absolutely have to embrace the fact that or community us expanding and growing more diverse. Personally I love it, if gamers are more diverse and have more diverse desires, developers will have to cater to more audiences and innovate, giving us more diversity in the games on the market. But beyond embracing it, we need to get rid of the extremely vocal minority of bigots, we need to let them know that we don't want anyone like that. I'm very much supportive of the changes that Lyte and his team are bringing to League of Legends (probably a bit biased as a player of the game), with a heavy handed approach when it comes to bigotry. If you are caught being racist, homophobic, sexist, anything of the sort and it's not a freak thing, something you do consistently, you're getting a two week ban, and if it's obscenely bad or you didn't change after the two weeks, you're getting perma-banned (technically a 200 year ban) and that's the end of the story. What's interesting that's coffee out of this is that a lot of people don't know they've done anything wrong, likey because they've never been told it's wrong. People have just stayed silent and let things happen, instead of calling out someone for their Bullshit. But no one likes to play or be around people like this, even if you aren't the target, toxicity completely destroys the atmosphere. Whether we like or not, we've let bigotry and toxicity become the norm, and we're reaching a turning point where we have to get rid of the hate or gamers really will be dead.
 
Pretty funny image :-)

I disagree though. Despite the quotes or whatever personal meaning the authors may have towards the word 'Gamer' it's been part of the culture and the web for a long time. I see people describe themselves as a 'gamer' in many places online, and yes, some of these are women too, and they don't consume 'The Dew'.

I think Leigh's was an inflamatory piece meant to hurt people. So was the avalanche of interestingly timed articles that came about at the same time shouting the same message.

Do I agree that every 'gamer' plays COD and drinks Dew and Doritos and Hot Pockets? I do not. Regardless of the connotation someone wants to apply to the term, it would be no better for me to say something like "movie buffs are basement dwellers who binge on netflix" and then try to specify 'Oh but by "movie buff" meant X, you shouldn't feel insulted"

You don't get to use attention grabbing headlines and then not be held accountable because you add a footnote. Sorry, but I disagree with that idea.

Look at the 'interestingly timed' articles -- they are almost all a response: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132616610&postcount=7856

I'm a real person. I'm a gamer. I can point you to a reddit comment I made before those articles were published where I made a similar post about how I was feeling disconnected from the word 'gamer' because of all the Five Guys nastiness. This was a real feeling.

Furthermore I think the pressure by GamerGate is a net negative for good journalism.

As an example, I realize that many people are critical of Leigh Alexander’s ‘Gamers are Over’ article (and the imitators that followed). I have, in numerous places including on Radio Nero, described the article as mindbogglingly stupid – I actually think she was getting at a good point, but failed in execution. I do think she’s got a caustic personality. But man, does she have some awesome motherfucking journalistic integrity. Why?

Because journalists believe that you do NOT edit, retract or apologize for your editorial opinions based on financial concerns.


Think about the New York Times. It’s a very liberal paper, and serves a very liberal audience in NYC. It has some pretty conservative columnists on their editorial board, who get worldwide exposure because of how important the paper is, and I’m sure that most of the population of NYC hates what they have to say. And I’m sure that the liberal colleagues that fill those newsrooms hate those columns too. I’m sure there’s a LOT of tension at times, and that the Christmas party gets a little tense once the eggnog starts flowing. I’m also sure that every one of those liberal newswriters would defend to the death the right of that conservative columnist to print his opinion piece and stand by it, even if the readership rioted and the advertisers pulled out.

Because of motherfucking journalistic integrity. That’s what it means.

http://www.zenofdesign.com/what-games-journalism-integrity-actually-is-and-what-it-isnt/
 
#jokes #laffs https://twitter.com/emilyyoshida/status/522425012834156544

@emilyyoshida said:
The thing about stopping #GammerGat is that it's hard to imagine misogynist culture raised on save points and cheat codes admitting defeat

I think he's saying "if you don't like what you see from the media you consume, start your own / make your own instead of sending death threats to people." Which makes sense, seeing as they actually tried to do that with the Penny Arcade Report. PA believes that Ben Kuchera is someone that could represent the best in video game journalism; so take that for what it is worth.

That's true admit Kuchera. I think more broadly, encouraging people to entrench and make a smaller world for yourself in response to a poor misreading of an article whose thesis was "the world is bigger now" is at best lame and at worst unhealthy.

I just realized the main journalistic ethics thread was closed. Is this the only thread left to discuss topics like that? Getting tired of all GamerGate, all the time

There's been some mumbling about a non-gg journalism thread. Might PM a mod about making one. I would but, y'know, I can't make that.
 
Equality is equality.
I don't draw a line.
If they firmly believe in equality and the negative influence from gaming, then yes, they should stand up and speak against it even if they are receiving threats.
MLK knew about the danger of speaking up, but that didn't prevent him from wanting equal rights.

MLK also had security to try and protect him. Sarkeesian hasn't stopped speaking up, she chose not to give a speech in a situation where it was clear she couldn't be protected. Being unwilling to get shot repeatedly doesn't mean you don't actually believe in what you're saying. It just means you don't want to get shot. I can assure you that if MLK had known that James Earl Ray was across the street with a rfile, he wouldn't have been standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel.
 
Harassment is bad. Doesn't mean I side with Leigh Alexander in spewing bile on gamers in general. It also doesn't mean I thin Nero speaks for me or my ideas or that Adam Baldwin's right-wing insanity is right up my alley.
We're still talking about that article? She wasn't insulting gamers. She was saying how the medium is so diverse and the audience is so varied, that you can't define "gamer" as one stereotype or market towards one demographics or personality. Gaming is for everyone
 
The marketers are the one that promote and pander to this image. Leigh was telling people that gamers are more than that. You missed the point so much.

Marketer promote to golfer too, let's stop using the term golfer, everyone can be a golfer. They can be more than that.

We didn't miss the point, there are no point to begin with, only click bait.
 
Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are dead" post was a rant. You aren't supposed to take rants literally.

Because if you do, you wind up earnestly responding to statements like "You don't exist" with "Yeah-huh I do exist!"

No one has to be reminded that white males between the ages of 18 - 24 play games. And if you don't realize that then you're an idiot.
 
I was chatting with a developer that I knew and learned he was pro-GG. I wanted to see if I could get some articulate thoughts on why someone would ever support GamerGate. Here were some of his responses:

On generalization




On the doxxing and harassment


On starting another hashtag

#notyourshield wasn't "taken over" any more than #gamergate was.
 
#jokes #laffs https://twitter.com/emilyyoshida/status/522425012834156544

That's true admit Kuchera. I think more broadly, encouraging people to entrench and make a smaller world for yourself in response to a poor misreading of an article whose thesis was "the world is bigger now" is at best lame and at worst unhealthy.

There's been some mumbling about a non-gg journalism thread. Might PM a mod about making one. I would but, y'know, I can't make that.

So, here's the odd thing about that.

If I made a gaming website that was focused on Indian-Americans and their relationships to games, and aiming it at purely that demographic; does that make the world bigger or smaller? To me, it would be a sign that the world is getting bigger and gaming is becoming more accepted if I could write such a site.

I always love this comic for that reason. People will put themselves generally in a group of people like them. But if the amount of groups diversify; eventually we will start running into each other. Said gaming website might bring a few more Indian-Americans into gaming as they can perhaps relate to it more / feel more comfortable.

I'll PM a mod about making a non-GG Journalism thread.
 
Marketer promote to golfer too, let's stop using the term golfer, everyone can be a golfer. They can be more than that.

We didn't miss the point, there are no point to begin with, only click bait.
If there is a diversity and representation problem in golf along with pandering to an entitled demographic, then criticisms of marketing's role in that would be valid, too.
 
We're still talking about that article? She wasn't insulting gamers. She was saying how the medium is so diverse and the audience is so varied, that you can't define "gamer" as one stereotype or market towards one demographics or personality. Gaming is for everyone

I forget why it even came up at this point. Someone pointed it out specifically I think, I was just responding to it. I'm honestly quite tired at this point so I could be wrong.
 
We are talking about a civilised country with a state of law. It's Anita's right, and everyone else, to talk freely and without fear for their own life. Threats should be dealt by authorities and people safeness ensured. Threats were issued to the University too, students, or any attendee were object of this threat. Stop talking nonsense.

So when the Civil Rights movement occurred, was it not also in a civilized country with a state of laws?
Weren't there a lot of threats against places/supporters if they allowed MLK to talk at those events?

I don't see why you have to bring up talking freely without fear, history and modern events have shown us that it is a rare case if you want to bring in changes. Just look at Hong Kong right now.
I am not even talking about if she has the right or not, because she and everyone of us do.
You have the right, but you must know there might be a risk to it.
I know I won't go to someone's face, and tell them off.

I want to make sure, equality in gaming is a big issue right?
If it is a big issue and needed to be addressed due to its negative influence on society/pop culture, this is a good cause to stand up even with the fear of being in danger, correct?
I hope Anita truly believes in her ideology that she would be a figurehead for this movement then.
A lot of great civil rights leaders have risen up to the occasion to stand up for their belief.
Will Anita be one of them?
 
We do. I never said I disagreed with the idea that gamers area diverse group of people. That's entirely the reason why I found that article and headline in bad taste!

We *all* know this (that gamers are diverse). Gamasutra *is not* a site read by non-industry, non-gamer people. Therefore, by using that tag, she was deliberate in her goal to get clicks by using inflammatory remarks. Is this the kind of writing we want to see? Is this not why Polygon is joked about in GAF from time to time?
Yes, it was to industry types. Telling them that the "gamer" stereotype doesn't have to be their focus. That's actually most of the actual title. "'Gamers' don't have to be your audience." See? Don't focus on the stereotype. I don't see how it's click bait to tell developers there is a wider range of consumer.
 
MLK also had security to try and protect him. Sarkeesian hasn't stopped speaking up, she chose not to give a speech in a situation where it was clear she couldn't be protected. Being unwilling to get shot repeatedly doesn't mean you don't actually believe in what you're saying. It just means you don't want to get shot. I can assure you that if MLK had known that James Earl Ray was across the street with a rfile, he wouldn't have been standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel.

And we know Anita went and talked before despite bomb threats. But yeah, if the campus or police or whoever won't do anything to prevent people bringing guns to her presentation after someone has threatened to shoot her... then it's pretty hard to criticize her for not doing it.

To touch on the 'real feminist' thing... If the women who supported gamersgate didn't all seem to be anti modern feminism, that'd be something. Why has gamersgate attracted the anti feminists if it's got nothing to do with feminism and it's only interested in fair treatment of gamers, or journalistic ethics?

I mean, we know the answer, but that isn't going to stop the gamersgate ring leaders from pretending like it isn't blatantly obvious. They know what it's really about. We know what it's really about. I'm not sure what good they think lying about it does.

I don't judge people by the labels they give themselves, or what they say their goal is, I judge them by their actions and the impact I think those actions will have.

If you call yourself a feminist and spend more time fighting against feminists than fighting for women, I'm going to ignore the part where you claim to be a feminist.

If you claim you're fighting for journalistic integrity but only seem to get upset about who female indie game developers have slept with, or only seem to go after female journalists... then yeah. I don't care what you claim to be.
 
Once you put words on the internet the meaning is what people make of it. Making statements like "Gamers are dead" seems pretty conclusive to me. I've not made it a secret about my thoughts that painting humanity with a wide brush, specially when its a brush spreading filth, is not a good practice.

I do not support the people who do that. As we can see, it certainly does not help anyone's causes and only creates bad blood between people. Attacks often do.

Humanity is made up of many people and cultures. To bring about change requires understanding that not everyone shares your point of view and that sometimes, we can all be wrong and still not be monsters. Changing people's POV comes from developing a mutual understanding and finding common ground to build on, not demolishing everything around you.

When you make definitive statements about groups of people as a whole you are no better than the people generalizing "all women/minorities/whatever do X" which is the type of thinking and actions that further divide rather than unite people of different races/sex/culture/etc.

Sorry, but not something I can get behind. There are far better people espousing the cause of feminism. I don't need to settle for someone who chooses to fight fire with fire in a burning house.

Cool. I am going to go ahead and interpret all of your posts in this thread as a post modern critique on the "Blair" character on Facts of Life. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Blair exists as a metaphor for the Falklands War.

I demand an apology.

#NotAllBlairs
 
So when the Civil Rights movement occurred, was it not also in a civilized country with a state of laws?
Weren't there a lot of threats against places/supporters if they allowed MLK to talk at those events?

I don't see why you have to bring up talking freely without fear, history and modern events have shown us that it is a rare case if you want to bring in changes. Just look at Hong Kong right now.
I am not even talking about if she has the right or not, because she and everyone of us do.
You have the right, but you must know there might be a risk to it.
I know I won't go to someone's face, and tell them off.

I want to make sure, equality in gaming is a big issue right?
If it is a big issue and needed to be addressed due to its negative influence on society/pop culture, this is a good cause to stand up even with the fear of being in danger, correct?
I hope Anita truly believes in her ideology that she would be a figurehead for this movement then.
A lot of great civil rights leaders have risen up to the occasion to stand up for their belief.
Will Anita be one of them?

Why are you using how trivial gaming is to cast shame on anita and not those who would engage in terrorist threats over that issue?
 
Well this sure speaks mountains. A site made by/for people who support pushing women back 60 years.
Holy shit, you weren't joking. I peeked at that site and found gems like this:
http://www.returnofkings.com/45748/...-malala-yousafzai-is-a-coward-and-a-hypocrite
And of course, beauties like "5 Reasons Why Girls With Tattoos And Piercings Are Broken", "Women Never Grow Up, They Just Grow Old", "The Most Disgusting Thing A Slut Can Say" (hint: the answer is "I love you", apparently), "Unconditional Love From A Woman Is Impossible", and other assorted vitriolic misogynistic verbal diarrhea.

Pushing back women 60 years? Actually, I take that back. I disagree with you. I think men weren't nearly that misogynistic in the 50's.

So many threats, so little action.
If people are receiving death threat about giving a speech about gaming/equality then backing down would only show that your words and ideology aren't worth it.
People shouldn't live in fear since fear will only prevent you from living your life.
The fuck? No one wants to risk their lives over video games. That doesn't mean her words aren't worth saying. Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom