Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter
User information for Matt Rutherford

Real Name Matt Rutherford   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname UHD
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
Signed On Oct 18, 2010, 16:26
Total Comments 218 (Novice)
User ID 56009
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Older >

News Comments > etc.

39. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 15:00 UHD
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:32:
UHD wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:22:
The only thing it shows is that those individuals don't think it's harmful...

Jesus, that is exactly what I said. How about reading the post before going on the offensive?

No, but it is a clear indication that those type X people in the group don't find your organization harmful to them...

I did read your post. Where you went on to say (emphasis mine):

Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:48:
No, but it is a clear indication that those type X people in the group don't find your organization harmful to them, which is compelling evidence that it may not be.

And I disagree. It's not compelling evidence. The presence of a select few is not indicative of the whole. Because by the same logic, the rabidly vocal sexist minority in gamergate also means maybe gamergate is the haven of sexist pigs. But that's not true, is it?

The post wasn't meant to be offensive, sorry if it came across that way.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

66. Re: etc., etc. Oct 30, 2014, 14:33 UHD
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:21:
You're pretty much saying genuine collusion hasn't been happening, because collusion is actually pretty common. What you call 'talking shop' and 'having a lack of imagination' sure seems like either collusion or that which is reasonably interpreted as collusion in any other scenario.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it probably didn't happen here. Big difference.

And what's being done about it? It's being pointed out. Advertisers are contacted. What do you think should be done? If your response here amounts to 'You did all this, but look, unethical journalists still exist so you didn't accomplish anything', then alright - some sexism still exists, ergo feminism and egalitarianism generally has been a complete failure. They should just be quiet and admit defeat.

Well, no, that makes no sense. Yet that seems to be what you're saying.

That's not what I said at all. I'm asking what is being done.

So far the only real, concrete example that's been brought up is Gawker. I know of more, but do you?

Sure, they do have the right to free speech. And everyone has a right to criticize them. I think 'by complaining about them you're just giving them attention' is just obviously wrong. "Don't pay attention to the major media outlet! By criticizing them and pointing out when they're wrong, you're just helping them!"

I imagine you think Sarkeesian and feminists generally should be very, very quiet, and all this 'complaining' they do is utterly counterproductive, and harms their cause by the very act of making criticisms?

I never said that. Quit putting words in my mouth.

You can criticize and complain all day long, but don't expect people to change just because you're complaining about them. They are free to dismiss, ignore, or ridicule your complaints. You have to go deeper than that to enact change.

As for Sarkeesian, she is traveling, meeting people, spreading her opinions and ideas through various forms of media, and doing research. Whatever you think of her methods or conclusions, she's actively doing things.

It's called 'activism' for a reason.

It does. I notice only one side has a massive media machine behind it. I take it you're urging the journalists to be fair? And if so - how? Apparently you view 'not talking about them, not criticizing them, and ignoring them' to be the grand strategy.

Except, oddly, the people criticizing them. Those people are game for criticism? Are you giving me power right now? Am I winning by you criticizing me?

Of course, the massive media machine keeping the good gamer down. Honestly at this point that sounds more like an excuse to continue doing nothing. Plenty of causes way more important than this overcame far more insurmountable obstacles to get the change they wanted.

I'm not out to win anything. I'm just having a discussion. If you're just trying to have a discussion, then we both win. Break out the streamers and party hats.

I do. I feel the problem here may be that the words I'm choosing, you dislike. Really, if someone is prepared to completely shut me off because I criticized feminism or feminists in any way, then that's a top notch example of something that needs to be changed. And it can't be changed by doing anything other than addressing it.

You probably don't like my words either. But you keep engaging me because it's a civil discussion. I wouldn't have my feelings hurt or hold it against you if you decided this was a waste of your time and walked away. I would hope you'd do the same for me.

Because he unwittingly serves as a great example? He's not very crafty, and he puts his thought processes on display. Pretty easy to strip him down and go, 'Alright - logical fallacy here, true believer syndrome there, dishonesty over there, lack of ethics there. Here's how not to think, if you're interested in fairness, in ethics, in this and that.' Will that persuade everyone? No. But hey, it may persuade someone.

Fair enough I guess. I still think you're wasting your energy but if it makes you happy.

You didn't answer my question. Did she just bow her head and walk out of the room when people made criticisms of her or her beliefs she found unfair?

She kept her mouth shut: Yes or no.

Just because you didn't get the response you wanted doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.

When it comes to what is fundamentally a problem of communication, talk isn't cheap. It is everything.

You're going to have to elaborate before I'll be convinced of that. How is it everything? What do you think merely talking will do?

This is the Internet. People have unprecedented levels of publishing power.

Oh, I think it's entirely reasonable to construe that yes, they've been harmed, and the 'tangible action' is encouraging others to speak up, disagree, and not be cowed. And that means something.

I didn't realize video game journalism was such a tyrannical juggernaut that no one dared criticize them before a woman allegedly slept with a dude for a good review or whatever sparked this nonsense to start with.

Seriously, who was being cowed by the likes of Gawker?

And if you're talking about the mass media, CNN and MSNBC and whatnot... you think they really give a shit about the plight of the plucky gamer compared to politics, local and world news, sports, etc.? This is a blip on their radar. If they cover it at all it's because the focus is now on feminists and feminists always sell.

Let's get straight to the point. Is your concern here with how people critical of feminism are tarnished? How being 'pro-GG' gets turned into basically, 'That means you're pro-rape and pro-hating women.'? Or is your concern that, quite possibly, GG's going to have success in your view and in the process harm that subgroup of feminists? What's really your worry here?

I have no worries. This doesn't affect me personally, because to my mind there's more important things to worry about than what some idiot on the Internet says about my hobby or whether or not their opinions are for sale. I still believe feminism is a distraction and focusing on it only gives credence to the idea that gamergate is about harassing women.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.

24. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 13:22 UHD
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:48:
No, but it is a clear indication that those type X people in the group don't find your organization harmful to them, which is compelling evidence that it may not be. No offense, but I would take the word of a women who says being affiliated with Gamergate isn't harmful to women over the words of a guy who is vehemently anti-GG and more importantly isn't, ya know, a woman.

The amount of women I have seen posting pro-GG stuff clearly indicates that they aren't even close to the Nazi-loving Jews you mention. You seem to be going to great lengths in trying to dismiss the women in the group, which sounds kind of sexist to me.

The only thing it shows is that those individuals don't think it's harmful. To imply that it extends to the entire organization based on a select few is just as disingenuous as saying the vocally rabid minority speaks for the majority.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:15:
PS. for people who don't seem to know, Colbert is on comedy network. His show is satire. Although he interviews real people, he interviews them as his right wing character almost exclusively(I think he's done what, 2 as himself?). You might as well get mad at an article from the Onion.

I think only one person's actually thought it was pro-gamergate, and that was in another thread. By now if you don't understand Colbert, you never will.

I'm pretty sure Sarkeesian understands Colbert.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.

16. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 12:38 UHD
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:23:
UHD wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:16:
ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:07:
One more real feminist writes in defense of GamerGate.

"Real feminists agree with me."

I don't know if she is actually a feminist, but she makes an interesting point

Agreed, but it's still a dumb thing to infer.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.

10. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 12:16 UHD
ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:07:
One more real feminist writes in defense of GamerGate.

"Real feminists agree with me."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.

6. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 11:53 UHD
I like Colbert. Good clip.

ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 11:36:
Fun fact: Anita supported #CancelColbert. The creator of #CancelColbert is not pleased.

It's almost like people are complex creatures that can change their minds and not hate anyone that doesn't like them.

Also yeah, doesn't hurt that she's not a racist piece of shit.

Necrophob wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 11:09:
I enjoy Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes videos, and I think she makes a good point on a lot of them. However, the media coverage on this issue has been extremely one-sided (I've never actually seen them ask a gamer their side).

Who exactly would they ask?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

62. Re: etc., etc. Oct 30, 2014, 10:44 UHD
I had a post all lined up, hit preview, and the site chose that particular time to shit its pants. Awesome.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 19:52:
One thing I find funny: Howevermany journalists all run a 'Gamers are dead!' article on one day, and it also turns out they're regularly talking and coordinating on a mailing list? Well, speculating collusion is utter fantasy. A conspiracy theory, in fact.

The expressly leaderless gaggle of internet people, collectively sick of said journalists, react poorly online, and Sarkeesian gets a death threat from some anonymous asshole? Well that is clearly GAMERGATE at work. All of them!

Not saying you said this at all, but it suddenly occurred to me, the comparison.

That's the danger of grouping together under a single label and then having no way of policing who uses that label.

I still don't think genuine collusion was happening, because it's not a crime for industry professionals to talk shop amongst themselves and journalists have a stunning lack of imagination.

Is there unfair generalization about gamergate? Sure. So what is being done about it?

I'm disagreeing because I think you are minimizing the problem, as if the key problem here is 'lack of ethics in the abstract'. Sometimes problems are a bit more specific, and this is one of those situations.

Well I disagree with that assessment, so I'm just going to shake hands and move on, 'cause I think it's one of those things we're not going to see eye-to-eye on. Which is fine.

I'm not sure what you mean. "Engaging them"? How? By criticizing their ideas and claims? They're not necessarily the audience for such things. By encouraging boycotts against Gawker?

Yes. Because by acknowledging them, you're giving them voice and not a little bit of vindication.

They (the nebulous they) have the right of free speech. They don't have a right to be taken seriously.

Neither does gamergate, incidentally.

Sorry, but no. First, what is this 'manhaters trying to destroy video games'? I wouldn't even put all feminists, full stop, in a single group. I'm happy to say it's a subset of feminism. But a subset of feminists is still a group of feminists, and these also happen to be the loudest proponents. Perhaps other feminists will speak up and denounce them. I think I'd like that.

Then stop using the label. Seriously. By doing so you're lumping them all together under one banner, which isn't fair.

Fairness goes both ways.

Let them. Some may say, 'Gee, YY Y has a point.' Others may be upset. Still others may not care. Que sera, sera.

And let them define your message for you? Politicians run afoul of that all the time.

I know the disconnect to that statement and the rest of the post, but my point is choose your words carefully.

The problem is, he's not exactly alone. As near as I can tell, he's a micro version of a number of people involved in games journalism, and journalism generally - who live and react by those same ideals, and who are trying desperately to force those ideals on others, often unethically.

He isn't alone in the grand scheme of things, but I'm talking about on this website. Shouting at Beamer isn't going to make the rest of them go away, so why waste your energy?

Tell me - your grandmother. Did she react to people who thought her feminism was a joke by deciding they were all silly and just ignoring them altogether, meandering off to where she wouldn't have to deal with them? Or did she stand and criticize at some point?

She responded with action. Words are cheap.

I find that unconvincing. The lack of ethics in journalism is being addressed, a particularly nasty and virulent strain of it is being highlighted, and yes, the source is having a big red line drawn around it. So far the result has been extremely encouraging. Not just advertiser setbacks at gawker, but more people realizing that for as loud as these journalists and their allies have been, they're nowhere near in the majority of thought. You really can disagree with them openly. You don't have to cater to them. And that means that when they do something unethical, you can point it out and maybe get something done about it.

That didn't seem as likely before.

They aren't just losing. They have lost. Unethical people will still exist, but an important message has been communicated to people who oppose it, and that's as much a victory as anyone could have hoped for.

But that doesn't mean we can't run up the high score, so to speak.

How else is it being addressed besides dogpiling on Gawker? Shouting on Twitter doesn't count. Talk is cheap. What other tangible action has been taken that has resulted in genuine change in the industry? Has Gawker even changed? Yeah they've lost advertisers (some it turned out they didn't even have to begin with), but has it actually hurt their bottom line? Does anyone know that with any degree of certainty?

And you've always been able to disagree with these people openly. It's just that nobody's bothered to do so until now, for some weird reason.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

55. Re: etc., etc. Oct 30, 2014, 01:53 UHD
I'm way too tired to respond to your post (and yeah, glad we're having a civil discussion, /high5), and I'll do so when I've had a bite to eat and some sleep but real quick:

Prez wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 20:50:
What I want to know is how everyone is so sure the people making the threats have anything to do with GG or even are aware of its existence. Reading some of the more offensive and over-the-top claims by militant feminists in the media is more than enough to get someone's ire up, affiliations be damned. The way Is see it if some random unhinged loon sees an Ana Sarkeesian video and takes to Twitter to threaten her that doesn't automatically put him in the GG camp.

How exactly do you prove someone's not part of GamerGate? There's no GamerGate ID cards or litmus test. I can tweet something like "I demand ethics in video game journalism #gamergate" and suddenly I'm associated. And I could not care less about ethics in video game journalism.

If someone's getting harassed by gamergate supporters (I mean run of the mill Internet harassment), and then suddenly they get a threat on their life or person or they're doxxed anonymously, it's not totally unreasonable to assume you're being threatened or doxxed by someone from gamergate even if it's not explicitly said.

It doesn't sound fair, but this is the Internet. Anonymity is a double-edged sword.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

47. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 16:55 UHD
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 14:22:
It's not just video game journalism, for one. For another, it's not like people just decide to become unethical for the hell of it most of the time.

People are unethical because it benefits them personally (or they're sociopaths). But we're talking in the context of gamergate. Or are we? I don't even know anymore.

I disagree. Some people think that their actions are justified, and that ethics is secondary to their mission. Other people will just conveniently define ethics away if they need to.

How does that contradict what I said?...

I assume by 'your' you mean GG's. But GG's gone after a number of things, including Gawker, for a pretty clear ethical violation. What else is there? The 'well look at how many times this word showed up' issue? But that goes back to the question: is there a particular problem with feminism in these ethical violations?

As I keep saying, one key difference between the usual ethical problems - which people still complain about - is that a quid pro quo situation, or a skewed review? That will garner criticism, and the people in play will go on the defensive, explain themselves, etc.

With VG feminist advocates? There is a habit of immediately going on the attack in a fierce way. If criticisms about review scores yielded 'Gamers are dead, they suck!' style reactions, yeah, you'd probably see a more animated focus there too.

The word count argument thing was silly and I never participated in it.

And if these VG feminists are so wrong and pig-headed, why are you engaging them? If they are really as awful and wrong as you say, you should be ignoring them and focusing on what's important.

Which isn't feminism.

Which is still a super loaded term that's been biting gamergate in the ass since it started. To you (pl), feminism is about manhaters trying to destroy video games as you know them. To my grandmother, it was about control over her own destiny.

I guess feminism shares something in common with gamergate. Funny that.

My posts, personally? They'd get a better understanding of why I think the way I do, I suppose.

They would. But how do those thoughts link back to gamergate? Because if you associate with the hash tag (and I don't know your level of involvement but your bias is clear - as is mine), then you reflect on gamergate as a whole. Someone will read your post, see that you're mostly talking about feminism, and make the connections.

As opposed to what? Let's pretend absolutely everyone is at fault, indeed equally at fault? I'm more than happy to criticize GG idiots when they act like idiots, as well as anti-GG idiots. But so far, only one person on blues has flat out said that disagreeing with them about misogyny and feminism was equivalent to doubting evolution, and it wasn't a GG defender.

And he's wrong. That's okay. Focusing on it isn't productive. Call him silly and move on.

What would it take to convince you that people who see themselves on a great SJW mission are a particular problem with regards to video game ethics, as opposed to... I don't know, each and every theoretical and broad class of ethics issues being equally violated at all times?

I've never denied that there's a class of people who are using this whole debacle to their own ends. What I'm trying to say is they're a distraction, and you lose focus when you engage them on their terms. They win.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

45. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 13:48 UHD
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 13:09:
The criticism of 'if the conversation is about unethical behavior in journalism, why is there talk about feminism?' makes about as much sense as saying, 'If the problem is with dishonesty in government, then why are people talking about (insert issue of your choice) lobbyists?'

'Lobbyists' wouldn't be a problem if government was honest.

'Feminists' wouldn't be a problem if video game journalism was ethical.

In both cases you're missing the forest for the trees: that government is dishonest and video game journalism is unethical. Everything else is smoke.

You need to go a step further and ask, 'Are people part of that subgroup engaged in what is alleged to be unethical behavior?' With the case of journalists, then yes, feminist advocacy - like nepotism, like other things - is a factor. That doesn't make 'feminism' itself directly a factor necessarily, but it can well make its advocacy and advocates a factor. In the GG case, a large factor, but nevertheless not the only one.

I am trying really, really hard to believe gamergate is about video game journalism ethics, but all your focus on feminism in particular is making it really hard to believe.

Try to think of it this way: if someone who has never heard about gamergate read your posts, would they understand what it's all about? Its goals and intentions?

But the willingess of some anti-GG people to accept that their advocates could be at fault is pretty low. Some seem unwilling to accept the idea that some people may disagree with them, or even simply not care about their favored issues - and, most difficult to accept of all - that these are not terrible, evil people for doing exactly that. Treating them as much finally got out of hand, lo and behold, there's backlash.

There's a lot of this going both ways so I wouldn't really start throwing stones unless you just want to keep throwing stones, in which case by all means go to town with the stones.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.

3. Re: etc. Oct 29, 2014, 13:28 UHD
Julio wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 12:38:
Finally some more balanced coverage from MSNBC.


... guess I should write something less pithy.

NKD's pretty spot-on. Yeah it's pro-gamergate but that doesn't mean it should be welcomed. She's using gamergate to push her own agenda. It might not be toxic, but it's self-serving nonetheless.

It's also diluting the intent of gamergate, which is presumably about ethics in video game journalism, so if that's true then she's really not helping. Derp.

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 2014, 13:53.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > WildStar Realm Transfers

3. Re: WildStar Realm Transfers Oct 29, 2014, 11:34 UHD
You can if your designers are huge grognards with rose-tinted glasses for game design that hasn't been relevant in years.

I really like Wildstar's aesthetic but the game's just way too tedious to play and the xtreme 90s attitude in TYOOL 2014 gets old really fast. I'm hoping the game turns itself around because I really want to like it, and reversing stupid decisions like the holy separation of PvP and PvE is a step forward.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

40. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 11:26 UHD
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 11:14:
You just basically summed up 3rd generation feminists without intentionally doing that I think It could be different per country, but in Germany femnazi's are trying to subvert the actual language that is taught at schools and universities in order to push their bullshit into the mainstream.

If you think Gamergate is only an Internet thing you must have missed the past 6 years of 3rd generation feminist bullshit groups springing up everywhere. And those do NOT have the goal of gender quality, they want to suppress males entirely. Going so far as demanding that women dominate certain industries, and having some success with it.

This entire topic isn't still alive because Gamergate exists (That was always a clusterfuck without direction) but because feminists of the 3rd generation are creating an extremely hostile atmosphere. Just look at the crap FEMEN and the likes pulled.

So wait, gamergate is about combating feminists now? I thought it was about ethics in journalism. Why are you talking about feminists?

That's the sort of thing I mean about labels. You're not engaging actual ideas or people. You're engaging a strawman you can tear down.

You can think what you want about feminism (and it means different things to different people; much like gamergate, summing the whole movement up in a single label is disingenuous), and I thank you for your honesty, but I've heard time and time again gamergate's about ethics in journalism. Complaining about feminists ruining everything good is diluting the message at best and actively sabotaging it at worst.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

35. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 10:27 UHD
Verno wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 09:19:
Using the word conspiracy is intended to make people look unreasonable or paranoid. There is no "conspiracy" but the gaming press is certainly one sided and there is literal precedent for at least some collusion, they had their little mailing list and then dumped a dozen like minded articles in a 2 day period, all coincidentally saying basically the same thing. That's pretty convincing to me.

The frustration that pushes people towards supporting some of the concepts behind GamerGate (and pushing back against these kinds of editorials) is very understandable, the press doesn't give any of these issues a fair shake and has been pushing an agenda from the beginning. Where was the press reporting on Zoe Quinns fake DMCAs and actively trying to censor reddit? Where are the counter points to Sarkeesian? Many readers like me have sent in editorials, rebuttals and so on, all of it ignored. The only thing that gets press play is essentially men bad, women good.

Because it's a silly Internet slapfight full of labels (MRA/SJW) rather than people/ideas and nobody's listening to anyone. In many cases (harassment, threats, etc.) it's going way too far, but this is video games on the Internet so it's serious business.

I say this as someone actively discussing it on this website, self-aware enough to know I'm rolling around in the mud too.

There's no conspiracy because the media prints what sells. The few organizations that aren't as beholden to corporate dollars are way too busy covering way more important shit than video games.

Video games is a large industry full of monied interests. Expecting the media to work as if it's not is naive at best. Should it be better? Sure. But you're not going to fix anything via Twitter.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

18. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 02:00 UHD
Honestly, it's the price you pay for being a loose coalition of individuals on the Internet. You have almost no way of policing them, because anyone can claim to be associated with it.

I'm also not really sure what you could use as "proof" when there's no official "gamergate" or... hell I don't know, "Social Justice Warrior Crusader" criteria except, you know, opinions. And I can lie out of my ass all day about those.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

15. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 00:40 UHD
beremot wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 00:04:
UHD wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 23:34:
beremot wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 22:55:
Just read the entirety of the Adobe statement (not that it's all that long).

I've always disliked Adobe as a company, but I found their statement to be pretty impressive. Devoid of corporate speak, and willing to call a spade, a spade, despite the risk that doing so might pull them in even farther.

Talk is pretty cheap, and I doubt they made a lot of money off Gawker.

Interpret it however you want, but I don't think they really care one way or the other about gamergate or their complaints. Same can be said for any of the other advertisers.

I don't think they made any money off gawker, since they didn't advertise there. As for--did I read this right?--them caring about gamergate's complaints, they actually managed to include a not so flattering description of gamergate--the kind that tends to drive GG'er true believers bananas ..

"We reject all forms of bullying, including the harassment of women by individuals associated with Gamergate."

That's what I meant when I said they call a spade, a spade.

Oh ho, that's what I get for making assumptions. Thanks.

Edit: Yeah really needed to read that. Talk is cheap but that's good talkin'.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

12. Re: etc., etc. Oct 28, 2014, 23:34 UHD
beremot wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 22:55:
Just read the entirety of the Adobe statement (not that it's all that long).

I've always disliked Adobe as a company, but I found their statement to be pretty impressive. Devoid of corporate speak, and willing to call a spade, a spade, despite the risk that doing so might pull them in even farther.

Talk is pretty cheap, and I doubt they made a lot of money off Gawker.

Interpret it however you want, but I don't think they really care one way or the other about gamergate or their complaints. Same can be said for any of the other advertisers.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.

8. Re: etc., etc. Oct 28, 2014, 22:16 UHD
Squirmer wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 21:49:
*This is precisely why the Gamergaters invented that young girl cartoon as their figurehead: because considering a "gamer" to be that is unusual.

So women gamers are so rare one had to be invented?...

Doesn't that actually perpetuate the stereotype, if your figurehead is a fantasy?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Metaverse

15. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 28, 2014, 18:22 UHD
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 17:55:
LittleMe wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 17:34:
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 16:22:
I think there may be another reason for this.

If someone accidentally had a "wardrobe malfunction" on twitch, I wonder if there'd be a liability issue for Twitch if it got distributed, as per the most recent "revenge porn" laws in some areas?

That's a separate issue.

Is it? I have no idea about the laws, just asking. I don't know how the hell 'tits unintentionally fall out during a live internet broadcast' is legally parsed.

IANAL, but accidentally showing bits of yourself isn't against the law if there was no intent to expose yourself or cause a public disturbance. Basically, shit happens, and the law usually accounts for that.

That doesn't mean some accidents don't have legal consequences (like involuntary manslaughter), but for something as minor as a wardrobe malfunction I doubt you'd be charged with anything.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Consolidation

7. Re: Morning Consolidation Oct 28, 2014, 16:26 UHD
nin wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 16:14:
I wonder about that as well. We're already seeing compromises, when traditionally we see the power of the system as it ages, as programmers learn the various tricks to get more out of it.

To be fair, this generation isn't very old. The 360 and PS3 lasted for eight years; the XBox One and PS4 are a year old. I think it took longer than a year for the former two consoles to stretch their legs.

Not to say AMD's Jaguar isn't hideously underpowered (it's a mobile SoC ffs) or that 30fps is somehow a good thing...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
218 Comments. 11 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Older >