etc., etc.

View : : :
43 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
43.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 15:02
Prez
 
43.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 15:02
Oct 31, 2014, 15:02
 Prez
 
So the lives of the women this mentally ill shooter killed mattered more than thev lives of the men he killed because he hated women? That's what I am hearing when you guys are so adamant about him being misogynist. Society did not make this guy or condition him to do it, his menatl health issues did. Honestly, I really never will understand feminism crusaders. Is there anything you WON'T spin to fit your narrative?
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
42.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 13:40
42.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 13:40
Oct 31, 2014, 13:40
 
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 13:24:
You don't instantly become a misogynist because you felt rejected when a girl dumps you or rejects you. That's something that needs to be really driven into the person over a period of time. Mass murderers simply do not tend to target particular genders. That's the realm of spree and serial killers.

I think part of the problem in talking about these things is that they're off in the realm of sociology and psychology, not exactly the most reliable "sciences". But they're very convenient if you're looking for any kind of 'Science shows/suggests!' rubber stamp to put on your social/political views.
41.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 13:24
NKD
41.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 13:24
Oct 31, 2014, 13:24
NKD
 
Flatline wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 13:03:
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 12:11:
There is zero evidence of a trend of misogyny or women being singled out when it comes to these types of shootings. These people trying to make it about misogyny is supremely disrespectful and does not help solve the problem.

Dude, the guy who did the UCSB shooting (Which happened like 5 miles from where I worked) wrote hate stories about destroying women and recorded a confession where he said "I'm doing this because women as a whole refuse to have sex with me."

He was so extreme that even the extreme red pill PUA guys were like "dude you need to chill".

Yeah I mentioned that guy in my post. As I said, it's not a trend. It's actually an outlier as far as motivations for mass murder go. Misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic or other sexual or gender driven killers tend heavily towards the serial or spree killer category. You don't instantly become a misogynist because you felt rejected when a girl dumps you or rejects you. That's something that needs to be really driven into the person over a period of time. Mass murderers simply do not tend to target particular genders. That's the realm of spree and serial killers.

For the sake of clarity so people don't have to look up definitions: Mass murder being something like a school shooting, a spree killer being something like Chris Dorner who does their killing all over the place in a short period of time, and a serial killer being the Green River Killer, Ted Bundy, etc. who do the kiling over a long period of time.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Avatar 43041
40.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 13:03
40.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 13:03
Oct 31, 2014, 13:03
 
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 12:11:
There is zero evidence of a trend of misogyny or women being singled out when it comes to these types of shootings. These people trying to make it about misogyny is supremely disrespectful and does not help solve the problem.

Dude, the guy who did the UCSB shooting (Which happened like 5 miles from where I worked) wrote hate stories about destroying women and recorded a confession where he said "I'm doing this because women as a whole refuse to have sex with me."

He was so extreme that even the extreme red pill PUA guys were like "dude you need to chill".
39.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 12:11
NKD
39.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 12:11
Oct 31, 2014, 12:11
NKD
 
Flatline wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 11:32:
As for the Seattle shooting, I don't know if we know enough about that yet to make a call on it. Jilted wannabe lover turned shooter isn't necessarily misogyny. If he left some manifesto or rant behind we'll learn sooner or later.

Rejection causes a lot of powerful negative emotions, particularly in teens. But it's not limited to rejection by the opposite sex, or even romantic rejection. Many shootings have happened because of bullying and general feelings of rejection not specifically related to romantic interests.

Teen boys are more likely to take it out on other people. Teen girls are more likely to take it out on themselves. This is why you don't really see teen girls doing school shootings. Teen boys are much more likely to engage in violence at school. Teen girls are twice as likely to attempt suicide, while boys are four times as likely to actually succeed because more aggression means more severe and more successful methods of doing so.

Teen males simply tend to be more outwardly aggressive. So when they snap, it's other people who feel the pain. Teen girls tend cut themselves and do other things. It has nothing to do with misogyny or boys thinking girls owe them something, or any of that shit, unless there is evidence of someone actually believing that like in that case of that one creepo who made the YouTube videos.

Fear of rejection is universal. It crosses all genders and sexual preference, and isn't limited to romantic rejection. There have been a lot of school shootings and the common thread going throughout nearly ALL of them is that both men and women were targeted.

There is zero evidence of a trend of misogyny or women being singled out when it comes to these types of shootings. These people trying to make it about misogyny is supremely disrespectful and does not help solve the problem.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Avatar 43041
38.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 12:08
38.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 12:08
Oct 31, 2014, 12:08
 
Squirmer wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 01:26:
I'm just pointing out how everybody else sees you.

"Everybody" or you? I don't know of much awareness for this in my social circles but I would have no problem explaining my thoughts on it and I doubt it would make any waves or offend anyone. Gaming in general is more of a societal norm these days but its not exactly party discussion material anyway.
Avatar 51617
37.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 12:03
37.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 12:03
Oct 31, 2014, 12:03
 
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 09:06:
At the end of the day, Anita Sarkeesian wins, Gamergate wins, gaming press loses.

The one thing that I'll readily grant AS is that she knows how to spin a bad situation to her benefit pretty well.

I'm just waiting for her to get on with something substantial in her critique of video games- namely ideas on how to change the landscape to be more welcoming to women. Just saying "Stop that!" isn't enough, because you're working against industry inertia and an already heavily weighted industry. It's the same through most STEM work environments.

I don't know if she will do more than critique. Now's the time at any rate. She's gotten her message as mainstream as you can expect. She doesn't need to stay in the "proof of concept" portion of her argument any more. Now it's time for the next step.

If she takes the next step and starts trying to be an element of change instead of a critic, then more power to her. If she stays in this critic stage, well... We've had other people make names off of attacking video games. Sooner or later they look like a fool.
36.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 11:49
36.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 11:49
Oct 31, 2014, 11:49
 
InBlack wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 03:52:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 18:41:
It's hard to fault her on blaming the Seattle shooting on misogyny. Early reports, and the twitter feeds of those involved, make it look like he killed a girl because she wouldn't be with him.

Wha..? Seriously, Jesus Beamer you really go off on the deep end with this issue over and over again. Hating/Loving ONE person (for whatever reason) is hardly hating all womankind. A mentally ill person is NOT a misogyinst. Its not a fucking disease, nor is it a mental condition. Its prejudice, pure and simple. A jelaous rage is not misogyny. You are doing a disservice to all reasonable people (including feminists) by obsfucating the issue with bullshit like this!

No.
Sorry.
Again, feeling that a women belongs to you is misogyny. Do you ever see a woman kill a man because she feels that not belonging to her is worthy of death? No. But you see men do it. You see laws that literally tell men that their wives bodies belong to them.

Again, misogyny isn't "hatred," much like homophobia isn't hatred. It's prejudice. And believing a woman belongs to you is prejudice against women. It's feeling that you have some ownership.

Here's an interesting article that explains how it's misogyny and says his actions were due to the unfair pressure men feel due to the decline of the patriarchy.

I mean, isn't it certainly possible he was both mentally unwell and reacting to a certain institutionalized misogyny that tells men that they deserve women? That, particularly when this guy was homecoming king, he deserves the woman of his choice? How many times have you seen a teen movie in which the homecoming king is ever, ever denied a female?
And speaking of ownership, how many movies have you seen in which two men see a girl and spend the movie fighting over which gets to be with her? Fairly common theme in movies, men fighting over who gets to be with a woman. Who deserves her more. Rarely do they actually take the woman's opinion into account. This is pretty much how men go through society - feeling as if they can just "prove" themselves. Has anyone here really had relationships that were series of them proving themselves? Nope, but Hollywood repeatedly tells young boys this is how you get women. It's on the decline - that Chris Pine movie about it failed miserably and was called creepy, but it's still a fairly common thing.
And that, despite me knowing you'll fight against it, is misogyny.
35.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 11:41
35.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 11:41
Oct 31, 2014, 11:41
 
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 09:06:
jdreyer wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 06:52:
No matter how right you are, it doesn't matter. Squirmer is right. You lost. Anita played the game better than you did. She "won" even if her fairly radical agenda is too extreme for most people. She became the spokesperson fighting against sexism in gaming, an industry with revenues in the 10s of billions. The mainstream media picked it up, and her along with it. This week: NYTimes, Colbert. Next week: Charlie Rose? CNN? And who do you have? Angry Joe? Yahtzee? No matter how you look at it, it's a total disaster.

Anita Sarkeesian isn't the enemy. Or, at least she's not my enemy. The enemy are unrepentant, biased, and bullshit press outlets. Gamergate gives her a boost, but she's never come out in defense of gaming journalism. Why would she? She's not even a gamer. She doesn't know anything about those sites or the issues involved there.

The conversation is just now starting to get back to where it was supposed to be, ethics in game journalism. The gaming press is running out of "victims" to distract everyone with. The moderates in Gamergate have been contacting advertisers, arranging interviews with the more reasonable people in the gaming press on the subject of ethics in journalism, etc. Basically they've just been waiting for the distraction engine to run out of fuel, which is happening. Anita Sarkeesian has already moved on to mainstream press which don't even cover games, so she's effectively a non-issue. Her increased profile is actually really good for gamers because she can move on to something more interesting to her than games.

What braindead trolls like Squirmer and Beamer never seemed to understand is that there wasn't just one conflict here and two sides. You had Anita/Feminists vs. Trolls on the Internet, and Gamergate vs. gaming press and associated shills. That first conflict is dying down, but the Gamergate hashtag overall has shown no signs of slowing down, and we're just starting to see an increase in coverage regarding the ethics issue.

In short, the idiots co-opting the argument for their own platforms and agendas are moving on, and Gamergate is actually starting to be about Gamergate again and not endless stupid distractions. Our own local Blue's News idiots will continue to try and push the feminism angle for a while until they get bored. But in the places where it matters, things are finally starting to look up. I'm really glad the conversation is slowly getting back on track.

At the end of the day, Anita Sarkeesian wins, Gamergate wins, gaming press loses.

You need a new hashtag/name if these are the things you believe.

And I find it so weird that this week I'm a braindead troll but last week I was:
NKD wrote on Oct 7, 2014, 17:47:
Beamer wrote on Oct 7, 2014, 17:06:

This is like the third topic you've agreed with me on in 2 days. Are you sure you don't want to change your opinion? Haha.

Hah. I can only think of one topic in recent memory I've disagreed with you on, so really that's the exception rather than the rule. You seem to avoid the trap of unwarranted and/or premature hating on anything and everything more than most people around here. And you're not a hit-and-run poster who will post something completely asinine and then vanish before reading any possible disagreement. Not saying I don't think you ever post anything asinine, but you stick around and discuss at the very least.

34.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 11:41
34.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 11:41
Oct 31, 2014, 11:41
 
Squirmer wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 23:15:
Oh I thought it started because her ex boyfriend is a fucking sociopath who enabled and encouraged an extraordinary torrent of abuse directed at her.

I wouldn't say sociopath. He doesn't have the hallmarks of that particular mental illness. Nor is he I think a psychopath.

I got the feeling he's actually like an Aspie or other high level autism spectrum filtered through being an immigrant to this country. This is only based on his post and an interview that was posted with him about a week ago. His levels of social triangulation are skewed with either of those qualities, and combining them sends them skittering off into the hinterlands. I don't think he truly understands the big deal.

BUT. It happened. And it raised questions. And to pretend like it didn't happen and not ask questions is a silly expectation. Edit: In fact, to not ask questions about gaming journalism means that Quinn got put through a world of shit for no reason.

At best, if you think the kid should have kept his f*cking mouth shut, and I do, you can try to avoid talking about or involving Zoe Quinn and let her have some privacy.

There's enough shit and dirt to do this and continue questioning and grilling the gamer press. I suggest doing this. If she wants to stay in the spotlight let her claw her way back in.
33.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 11:32
33.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 11:32
Oct 31, 2014, 11:32
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 20:22:
dubfanatic wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 20:18:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 18:41:
It's hard to fault her on blaming the Seattle shooting on misogyny. Early reports, and the twitter feeds of those involved, make it look like he killed a girl because she wouldn't be with him.

Yep, misogyny. Not untreated mental illness, not a product of a degenerate culture that glorifies violence and hyper-individuality. It's definitely misogyny. Rolleyes

Those are factors of both the shooting and misogyny, but shooting a woman because she won't be yours is absolutely misogyny.

Same with the California shootings. I know Milo Breitbart said it was due to video games, not misogyny, but shooting women because they won't have sex with you; having such a feeling of entitlement to their bodies that they deserve to die for not allowing you access to it, is misogyny, your eyeroll emoticon or not.

I'll agree with Beamer here on the Santa Barbara shootings- that was crazy and misogyny mixed in equal helpings. That guy truly hated women.

As for the Seattle shooting, I don't know if we know enough about that yet to make a call on it. Jilted wannabe lover turned shooter isn't necessarily misogyny. If he left some manifesto or rant behind we'll learn sooner or later.
32.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 09:43
NKD
32.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 09:43
Oct 31, 2014, 09:43
NKD
 
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 09:15:
What I've enjoyed the most about the GG debacle is that the attempts to shut GG people up by namecalling and smearing them didn't work. We may have reached a cultural point where, at least for a sizable number of people, the prospect of being called a bad name or being tarred with this or that brush - or the threat of as much - simply doesn't matter. They'll say what they please, and a good number of people will go around the mainstream media rather than through it to get informed on a topic.

The Anti-GG camp never had any kind of valid point or argument, or even any real stance other than "harassment is bad, don't do it" which no one was disagreeing with. So instead they relied on a lot of loud voices, bully pulpits, and attempts to shout down people they didn't like using their advantageous position with certain games media. But you can't sustain that.

Instead of pressuring Gamergate supporters out of the conversation, they just made them more steadfast in their resolve. The Escapist, Polygon, and a few other sites have made adjustments to their ethics policies. I read an article on Gamespot the other day that actually had a disclosure about the writers former connections to the developers. IGN has been forthcoming to people inquiring about their ethics policies as well. Even Stephen Tortilla from Kotaku had a 2 hr long interview/discussion with TotalBiscuit about the ethics issue a couple days ago.

The Anti-GG crowd is mostly a bunch of daytrippers. They have no real skin in the game because, by and large, they aren't even gamers. So they'll tire of picking on the nerds and move on to whatever is next. But gamers aren't going anywhere. They aren't going to abandon their hobby.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Avatar 43041
31.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 09:15
31.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 09:15
Oct 31, 2014, 09:15
 
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 09:06:
In short, the idiots co-opting the argument for their own platforms and agendas are moving on, and Gamergate is actually starting to be about Gamergate again and not endless stupid distractions. Our own local Blue's News idiots will continue to try and push the feminism angle for a while until they get bored. But in the places where it matters, things are finally starting to look up. I'm really glad the conversation is slowly getting back on track.

I don't think 'feminism' is neatly disentangled from what you think are the 'real issues'. But generally agreed anyway.

What I've enjoyed the most about the GG debacle is that the attempts to shut GG people up by namecalling and smearing them didn't work. We may have reached a cultural point where, at least for a sizable number of people, the prospect of being called a bad name or being tarred with this or that brush - or the threat of as much - simply doesn't matter. They'll say what they please, and a good number of people will go around the mainstream media rather than through it to get informed on a topic.
30.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 09:06
NKD
30.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 09:06
Oct 31, 2014, 09:06
NKD
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 06:52:
No matter how right you are, it doesn't matter. Squirmer is right. You lost. Anita played the game better than you did. She "won" even if her fairly radical agenda is too extreme for most people. She became the spokesperson fighting against sexism in gaming, an industry with revenues in the 10s of billions. The mainstream media picked it up, and her along with it. This week: NYTimes, Colbert. Next week: Charlie Rose? CNN? And who do you have? Angry Joe? Yahtzee? No matter how you look at it, it's a total disaster.

Anita Sarkeesian isn't the enemy. Or, at least she's not my enemy. The enemy are unrepentant, biased, and bullshit press outlets. Gamergate gives her a boost, but she's never come out in defense of gaming journalism. Why would she? She's not even a gamer. She doesn't know anything about those sites or the issues involved there.

The conversation is just now starting to get back to where it was supposed to be, ethics in game journalism. The gaming press is running out of "victims" to distract everyone with. The moderates in Gamergate have been contacting advertisers, arranging interviews with the more reasonable people in the gaming press on the subject of ethics in journalism, etc. Basically they've just been waiting for the distraction engine to run out of fuel, which is happening. Anita Sarkeesian has already moved on to mainstream press which don't even cover games, so she's effectively a non-issue. Her increased profile is actually really good for gamers because she can move on to something more interesting to her than games.

What braindead trolls like Squirmer and Beamer never seemed to understand is that there wasn't just one conflict here and two sides. You had Anita/Feminists vs. Trolls on the Internet, and Gamergate vs. gaming press and associated shills. That first conflict is dying down, but the Gamergate hashtag overall has shown no signs of slowing down, and we're just starting to see an increase in coverage regarding the ethics issue.

In short, the idiots co-opting the argument for their own platforms and agendas are moving on, and Gamergate is actually starting to be about Gamergate again and not endless stupid distractions. Our own local Blue's News idiots will continue to try and push the feminism angle for a while until they get bored. But in the places where it matters, things are finally starting to look up. I'm really glad the conversation is slowly getting back on track.

At the end of the day, Anita Sarkeesian wins, Gamergate wins, gaming press loses.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Avatar 43041
29.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 08:53
Prez
 
29.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 08:53
Oct 31, 2014, 08:53
 Prez
 
NKD wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 01:38:
Will you people stop responding to that worm? Pretty please? Has he ever done anything except be an enormous douchebag and asshole who seemingly crawled out of the ground just for Gamergate? No. So why dignify anything he says with a response? Let's get back on topic.

Yeah - I always give people the benefits of the doubt for way too long.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
28.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 08:51
Prez
 
28.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 08:51
Oct 31, 2014, 08:51
 Prez
 
Squirmer wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 01:26:

If you want to ignore how Gamergate is actually being perceived outside of your subreddits and your multiple-of-4-chans, that's up to you.

No, I just want to ignore condescending, self-righteous, pompous know-it-all's like yourself. Good riddance troll.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
27.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 08:49
27.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 08:49
Oct 31, 2014, 08:49
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 31, 2014, 06:52:
No matter how right you are, it doesn't matter. Squirmer is right. You lost. Anita played the game better than you did.

but thats all it is... a game

mass media loves a conflict, but its a fickle mistress.. this kinda bullshit wont even get 5 minutes of fame, much less 15
26.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 07:01
26.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 07:01
Oct 31, 2014, 07:01
 
Actually, I feel she does touch on some of the right points.

Quinn did suggest that there are "real concerns" about ethics in games journalism, but from the very beginning the GamerGate movement focused on the wrong area - on "the people with the least power in the industry."

"Nobody's talking about the relationship between the major publishers and the press," Quinn continued, advising those with actual concerns to abandon the irrevocably tarnished GamerGate hashtag.

"Many of the real concerns that people should have about ethics in games journalism have been completely ignored."

She also talks about bullying (specifically, cyber-bullying) which is also a major issue right now. It's not just men against women but women against women, men against men, etc. She also specifically condemns "the industry" - that is, the gaming companies and the complex itself, and also the "hate mob" rather than gamers individually. She can be a bit vague with all this and still puts out a "even if you do nothing you are helping the enemy" type of vibe. So I can't say I really find her comments to be impacting in that regard but neither do I see her saying some of the shit I'm seeing anti-GG people saying ostensibly in her name.

As far as Fryberg is concerned, I don't follow these things but wasn't he Native American?

And there was the tight-knit world of his Tulalip Tribes, where much of life was steeped in history and tradition and where virtually everyone he knew was family in some way.

Yep...definitely our white, misogynistic culture at work! I wish I used cookies so I could block the outright insanity I am reading from certain people on here.

I also take offense at people suggesting there was a "winner" and a "loser." Trust me when I say, as far as Gamergate goes, everybody lost.
25.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 06:52
25.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 06:52
Oct 31, 2014, 06:52
 
No matter how right you are, it doesn't matter. Squirmer is right. You lost. Anita played the game better than you did. She "won" even if her fairly radical agenda is too extreme for most people. She became the spokesperson fighting against sexism in gaming, an industry with revenues in the 10s of billions. The mainstream media picked it up, and her along with it. This week: NYTimes, Colbert. Next week: Charlie Rose? CNN? And who do you have? Angry Joe? Yahtzee? No matter how you look at it, it's a total disaster.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
24.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Oct 31, 2014, 03:52
24.
Re: etc., etc. Oct 31, 2014, 03:52
Oct 31, 2014, 03:52
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 18:41:
It's hard to fault her on blaming the Seattle shooting on misogyny. Early reports, and the twitter feeds of those involved, make it look like he killed a girl because she wouldn't be with him.

Wha..? Seriously, Jesus Beamer you really go off on the deep end with this issue over and over again. Hating/Loving ONE person (for whatever reason) is hardly hating all womankind. A mentally ill person is NOT a misogyinst. Its not a fucking disease, nor is it a mental condition. Its prejudice, pure and simple. A jelaous rage is not misogyny. You are doing a disservice to all reasonable people (including feminists) by obsfucating the issue with bullshit like this!
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
43 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older