76 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
76.
 
No subject
Oct 15, 2014, 23:53
76.
No subject Oct 15, 2014, 23:53
Oct 15, 2014, 23:53
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 19:36:
You have absolutely zero sense of humor.
There was no humor in that in the first place. If you thought it funny, I seriously question your ethical and moral standards on applying that to anyone.
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
75.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 19:36
75.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 19:36
Oct 15, 2014, 19:36
 
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 19:31:
But if we're so terrible that isis finds it deplorable, I guess that means #stopgg2014 and gamerghazi(who is also using that hash) support rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and ethnic cleansing right? Then again, being "worse" than isis would mean that we're the polar opposite of them. My, my...how telling that is.

You have absolutely zero sense of humor.
74.
 
No subject
Oct 15, 2014, 19:31
74.
No subject Oct 15, 2014, 19:31
Oct 15, 2014, 19:31
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 19:02:
You're right. I should have used "name," not "hashtag." As far as I know, no large group of people is identifying as "stopgg2014." But I also haven't seen many people actually call themselves "anti-gg." There's really no organized "anti-gg." There's the stupid gameghazi, but that's 1/10th of the KotakuInAction.

Also, if your movement is so terrible that even ISIS finds it deplorable... ha!
Well you're right, it's just the same clique of sjw's that have launched 6 or 8 other hashes all of which failed miserably. Really there's no organized anti-gg? I guess you missed all those articles a while back, and how lw, lw2, and lw3 all keep injecting themselves back in while trying to direct the narrative.

But if we're so terrible that isis finds it deplorable, I guess that means #stopgg2014 and gamerghazi(who is also using that hash) support rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and ethnic cleansing right? Then again, being "worse" than isis would mean that we're the polar opposite of them. My, my...how telling that is.
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
73.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 19:30
Quboid
 
73.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 19:30
Oct 15, 2014, 19:30
 Quboid
 
I can see where you're coming from, ASeven. Fundamentally I have a different interpretation of what the "Gamers are Dead" articles were about and who they criticised so we're never going to see eye to eye on this.

I guess I don't see either side as being all that different - both have good points and I probably agree with most people on each side (or perhaps not; it can be a fallacy to assume a silent majority agrees with you). However, there are people on both sides who make a lot of noise and pollute the debate which causes everyone involved in the debate to be highly defensive. This naturally leads many on both sides to adopt a siege mentality, propagating the us-against-them mentality.

When I said that GamerGate is bad for gaming, I didn't mean pro-GamerGate positions. I meant the debate in its entirety and how we're crying out for proper debate that elements of both sides are making impossible. Ultimately I'm anti-pro-GamerGate and I'm anti-anti-GamerGate. I'm also anti-broad-labels-that-encourage-generalisation so basically I don't much like the whole topic.

I was wrong to use GamerGate to describe the entire debate as it's established as referring specifically to one side. I apologise for this and while I keep telling myself not to get involved in these threads, when I inevitably do I will make an effort to avoid making this mistake again.
Avatar 10439
72.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 19:13
72.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 19:13
Oct 15, 2014, 19:13
 
Julio wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:49:
There is no need to abandon the #Gamergate tag. It's working quite well. I can see why the anti-GG movement would like that to happen though. Why don't the anti-GG people abandon Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn?

I hope they don't, it makes taking apart their arguments quite simple when they support those hypocritical, manipulative idiots.
Avatar 57682
71.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 19:03
71.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 19:03
Oct 15, 2014, 19:03
 
Julio wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:49:
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.

Squirmer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:34:
what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)

There is no need to abandon the #Gamergate tag. It's working quite well. I can see why the anti-GG movement would like that to happen though. Why don't the anti-GG people abandon Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn?

Because people only support them in the "harassing them is idiotic" sense.
70.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 19:02
70.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 19:02
Oct 15, 2014, 19:02
 
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:56:
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.
So I guess that means that #stopgg2014 should change their hashtag now, after all they have people who called us "worse than isis" supporting them, and actual isis related tweets in there. I suggest they take #meow.

You're right. I should have used "name," not "hashtag." As far as I know, no large group of people is identifying as "stopgg2014." But I also haven't seen many people actually call themselves "anti-gg." There's really no organized "anti-gg." There's the stupid gameghazi, but that's 1/10th of the KotakuInAction.

Also, if your movement is so terrible that even ISIS finds it deplorable... ha!

69.
 
No subject
Oct 15, 2014, 18:56
69.
No subject Oct 15, 2014, 18:56
Oct 15, 2014, 18:56
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.
So I guess that means that #stopgg2014 should change their hashtag now, after all they have people who called us "worse than isis" supporting them, and actual isis related tweets in there. I suggest they take #meow.
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
68.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 18:49
68.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 18:49
Oct 15, 2014, 18:49
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.

Squirmer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:34:
what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)

There is no need to abandon the #Gamergate tag. It's working quite well. I can see why the anti-GG movement would like that to happen though. Why don't the anti-GG people abandon Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn?
67.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 18:39
67.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 18:39
Oct 15, 2014, 18:39
 
Squirmer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:34:
It kind of astounds me that anyone would still claim to support gamergate at this stage, considering the actual mainstream coverage of it. Outside of the distorted view of reality in gamergate circles, the mainstream coverage should make people realize that the rest of the world sees gamergate supporters as either 1) childish internet trolls, or 2) actual psychopaths.

If you actually care about journalism ethics, what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)

This is why I've said they should change their hashtag. At this point #gamergate is doing far more damage to the outside opinion of "gamers" than Jack Thompson ever could. Gamers always hated the outside opinion being unfair, well, now the outside opinion is of grown men throwing tantrums and threatening women because they're unwilling to share their toys.

Screw talk of "controlling the narrative," that's the mainstream narrative. Outside of, maybe, a 26 minute HuffPo video no one that doesn't already care would ever devote time to.

Leigh Alexander very stupidly worded an article that tried to say the outside stereotype of "gamers" being society's rejects was wrong, and as a result, a small but very vocal minority of gamers has gone and proven it exactly right. And people stick with it. No matter how many times they're told that everyone not a part of #gamergate (and it's only a small number that's a part of it) thinks it's about hating women, they stubbornly insist it's about ethics. And then whine about SJWs censoring things.
If no one outside of your cause thinks your cause is for what you claim, it probably isn't and it's probably time to do some rebranding.
66.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 18:34
66.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 18:34
Oct 15, 2014, 18:34
 
It kind of astounds me that anyone would still claim to support gamergate at this stage, considering the actual mainstream coverage of it. Outside of the distorted view of reality in gamergate circles, the mainstream coverage should make people realize that the rest of the world sees gamergate supporters as either 1) childish internet trolls, or 2) actual psychopaths.

If you actually care about journalism ethics, what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)
65.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 18:34
65.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 18:34
Oct 15, 2014, 18:34
 
Thanks ASeven for all the links and posts. Always an interesting read.
64.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 18:13
UHD
64.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 18:13
Oct 15, 2014, 18:13
UHD
 
ASeven wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:47:
You are correct, in the literal sense of the law. When I meant privilege I didn't mean it in the literal sense of the law, I mean it as a god damn privilege for both parts, as in, "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions" which in this case translates to an advertisement being placed on a site in order for the site to gain revenue from its exposure.

Contracts aren't privilege. Maybe you can frame it that way but it's not completely accurate, either.

As for my words, you should worry more about your own continuing trolling of all gamergate threads and I'll take care of my own words, thank you.

Having something to say that you don't like isn't trolling.

From the start it broke the narrative, because it is a project that was slandered by SJWs from the moment it was funded by 4chan, and then GamerGate, in their indiegogo campaign and it's a project meant to aid women developers in the industry, something that SJWs keep saying Gamergate is not about.

This is the narrative breaker that every SJW loves to ignore because it proves that Gamergate was always about helping women and exposing the lack of ethics in "gaming journalism". When they were hacked, no SJW site covered this despite them covering about all the harassment GG allegedly did against everyone in their buddy list.

I didn't realize GamerGate was a monolithic bloc. I also can't find any mention of GamerGate funding anything, just 4chan, and they appear to have done it completely out of spite of Quinn specifically? Not really a narrative breaker if that's the case.

Also what the hell is a SJW site? SJW seems like a really convenient label for "people who disagree with me."

As a final word, I remember your first post on the GamerGate topics here on Blue being that you didn't really care much for all this.

I don't, it's just fun to comment on. Nice memory, though.

In that case, and since you are weary of this, I suggest you leave these threads if they bother you so much.

You can't silence me.
63.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 18:05
63.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 18:05
Oct 15, 2014, 18:05
 
Quboid wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:36:
I did, hence the bit about "what the rest of GamerGate seems to think of that". You have repeatedly generalised, even in this very post and in posts on this thread since.

They're not my camp and the line "you lot, not you specifically mind" is very telling. Why did you exclude me? I think it was because you realised you were generalising and you caught on enough to not include me (on this particular occasion, you lump me in with them throughout the rest of this post). However, you still generalised and tarred all but one of this imaginary camp with this brush.

I haven't commented on TFYC because I don't know much about it and it's nothing to do with me. It's your own misunderstanding that people who disagree with you are in some camp and pointing out inconsistencies is not pointing out hypocrisy, it's disproving your own stupid assumption.

Let's start with the first wrong generalization in the first place, that #GamerGate was and is about harassing women in the industry. It is not and it never was. GamerGate started not with the ex of ZQ posting that blog, it started when ZQ DMCAd Mundanne Matt's video talking about it, from there on the flood gates were open for the consumer revolt it became.

Now that's out of the way let's talk about how I generalized SJWs. Am I at fault for generalizing? Yes, yes I am, now that I've re-read what I wrote. I apologize for that since I do preach against fallacies. Fact is, I'm tired of being lumped, of being generalized as something I am not and reading a narrative being spun that is simply not true. When you have so many sites preaching that gamers are dead, that gamers are harassing every women they find, it does get to your nerves and when you keep reading the tremendous amount of bullshit being said by everyone against Gamergate you get tired of it real quickly and start assuming everyone who doesn't understand Gamergate and speaks against it really fits into the same brush. Human nature, I guess.

I don't care that people disagree with me, criticism is healthy and I approve of it. It's when said criticism starts to become so much of a spin, so much bullshit that my patience runs thin, and Gamergate has demonstrated that some people really have no problem spewing bullshit again and again. When you get as involved as I've been in this mess, because I always rally to the causes that are pro-consumer and hence I'm in favor of GG, you get real tired real quickly of reading the same lines over and over again.

And that's what happened to me, I am tired of all the bullshit and it seems I've stepped into writing the same fallacies I keep reading. For that I apologize.
62.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 17:47
62.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 17:47
Oct 15, 2014, 17:47
 
UHD wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:34:
An advertisement is a PRIVILEGE.

It is a business deal. Neither side would do it if it didn't mean a profit or benefit down the road. Privilege implies a whole different thing.

You have consistent trouble with words. I'd suggest putting more thought into how you present your ideas.

You are correct, in the literal sense of the law. When I meant privilege I didn't mean it in the literal sense of the law, I mean it as a god damn privilege for both parts, as in, "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions" which in this case translates to an advertisement being placed on a site in order for the site to gain revenue from its exposure.

As for my words, you should worry more about your own continuing trolling of all gamergate threads and I'll take care of my own words, thank you.

And still nothing on TFYC I see, which is what breaks the narrative completely of all SJWs. They can't stand that Gamergate funded a great project to help women developers, it completely goes against their narrative.

How does TFYC 'break the narrative?'
From the start it broke the narrative, because it is a project that was slandered by SJWs from the moment it was funded by 4chan, and then GamerGate, in their indiegogo campaign and it's a project meant to aid women developers in the industry, something that SJWs keep saying Gamergate is not about.

This is the narrative breaker that every SJW loves to ignore because it proves that Gamergate was always about helping women and exposing the lack of ethics in "gaming journalism". When they were hacked, no SJW site covered this despite them covering about all the harassment GG allegedly did against everyone in their buddy list.

As a final word, I remember your first post on the GamerGate topics here on Blue being that you didn't really care much for all this. In that case, and since you are weary of this, I suggest you leave these threads if they bother you so much.
61.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 17:47
Quboid
 
61.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 17:47
Oct 15, 2014, 17:47
 Quboid
 
Redmask wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:36:
Someone the other day asked about drowning out others, this is exactly what I meant.

I think that was me; although I asked about directly controlling the conversation it was referring to the same post of yours. I still don't see the problem, did you mean he makes his point and responding to people who respond to him? You meant not surrendering or hiding when challenged? Why is ASeven any different to Beamer in this regard?
Avatar 10439
60.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 17:42
60.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 17:42
Oct 15, 2014, 17:42
 
The Wikipedia article for TFYC isn't very conclusive, but it looks like a female-only dev competition that Zoe Quinn disliked and, after 4chan exploded against Zoe Quinn, it decided it did like?

Who cares? Zoe Quinn doesn't seem like the sharpest nail in the drawer. She doesn't speak for everyone, or really, anyone other than herself. She isn't always right. Who knows if she's often right? I've never played her game, never seen a screenshot of her game, don't know what she did before that game, and don't know if she's done other games.

I do know that her sex life didn't deserve to be made public, picked over, laughed at, and turned into a meme.
59.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
Quboid
 
59.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
 Quboid
 
ASeven wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 15:00:
Also, you don't get to say I focus on a few to paint a large picture because that's all you lot, not you specifically mind, have been doing, calling all gamers misogynists, and far worse, and painting all of us under a very large brush. Before you accuse me of generalization, look at your own camp first.

I did, hence the bit about "what the rest of GamerGate seems to think of that". You have repeatedly generalised, even in this very post and in posts on this thread since.

They're not my camp and the line "you lot, not you specifically mind" is very telling. Why did you exclude me? I think it was because you realised you were generalising and you caught on enough to not include me (on this particular occasion, you lump me in with them throughout the rest of this post). However, you still generalised and tarred all but one of this imaginary camp with this brush.

I haven't commented on TFYC because I don't know much about it and it's nothing to do with me. It's your own misunderstanding that people who disagree with you are in some camp and pointing out inconsistencies is not pointing out hypocrisy, it's disproving your own stupid assumption.
Avatar 10439
58.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
58.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
 
I don't even know what TFYC is.
57.
 
Re: etc.
Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
57.
Re: etc. Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
Oct 15, 2014, 17:36
 
Someone the other day asked about drowning out others, this is exactly what I meant.
Avatar 57682
76 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older