Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba_sl said:

I honestly don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. The sexist asshole gamers are giving gamers as a whole a bad name. Instead of creating sub-categories of gamers based on level of assholeness, the author is talking about gamers with a specific focus on those of us that are sexist assholes. He makes it clear SEVERAL times that not all gamers are like this, but you're choosing to be offended because the title was shittily worded (aCrackedstaple). Myself and many other gamers can read that article and never once get the impression that we are being unfairly judged or categorized. Again, I think you need a pre-existing chip on your shoulder to be angry at a guy for calling out sexist asshole behavior as being unacceptable and harmful. But whatever, you ignored what I had to say about this already so it's pointless to go around in circles.

Click to expand...

As I highlighted last time--he consistently refers, throughout the article, to the plural nominative known as "we". In the English language this indicatespossession; andliterallymeans the author is talking about himself (Or in the plural form, the group he belongs to). Every section break but one (Which uses "male gamers"--which yes, you and I fit into) uses "we". There is NO other way to interpret the language used--it's beyond basic English.

Now you feebly attempted to highlight how he mentions (Once) a "minority" in the article--but he mentions it as "if nota majority"; which means,it'smost likelya majorityof gamersoraless likelysubstitute. Effectively the "if not" statement in this case is an"or"that lends apreponderance of validityonto the first statement--but COULD mean the second statement if an unlikely variable [IE extreme vocality] werealsotrue..Long and short it means, most likely, he's talking about the majority of gamers. If you disagree with this assessment, please write the contributors ofFunk and WagnallsandGarners( "IF NOT" in this case is clearly defined in those guides) for "getting it wrong" (Obviously this chip on my shoulder has infected the technical writing manuals; who knew this gamer cancer of anger ran so deep!)

Anyway; you're being absolutely absurd here if you don't believe the author is prostrating himself because he is ashamed of the average mentality of his community (And therefor lumping all gamers in with the problem). He regards himself as "not a complete idiot" about gender; but that statement essentially means that he does believe he's mostly an idiot (Again, refer to the above style/elements books if you want to argue on the meaning of these phrases). So it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that when he refers to "we" or casually insults the average gamer by illustrating that the average gamer (Which, by the way, is a 30+ adult person with children) can't choose a logical answer to an inane question (QuoteIf you picked A, then congratulations! You're more mature than theaveragegamer. Here's atypicalresponse to Quinngate)--he is simply being an obsequious idiot trying acknowledge his "communities" (Gamers) supposed short comings in order to pander to the few Tumblr-ists who still cling to Cracked.

Tanoomba_sl said:

You're just being silly now. Seriously. I've said repeatedly that there is valid criticism of Sarkeesian. I have linked valid criticism of Sarkeesian. I have expressed my own valid criticism of Sarkeesian. You know what all of this valid criticism had in common? Nobody expressing this criticism said they wanted to drink blood out of her ripped open cunt. If you need to threaten to rape and kill someone to criticize them; if you need to refer to someone as a "cunt" or "whore" to criticize them; if you need to use explicitly misogynist and hateful language to criticize someone, then guess what? YOU ARE A SEXIST ASSHOLE....Yes, Lith, the "core reason" for why Sarkeesian and Quinn were targeted IS different from why Thompson was targeted. You WANT to believe it's not, but that's just an assumption on your part. Unfortunately all the readily available evidence points otherwise.

Click to expand...

Here you're responding to my example of how the method of hyperbolic, implied violence changes (Sexist remarks vs common violence), but not the the REASON for the behavaior, by trying to straw man it into saying "she doesn't deserve the sexist remarks!". Of course she doesn't, Tan. However; I personally watched (And remember, I have pretty good recall) someone post that they wanted to shit in Jack Thompson's mouth and then curb stomp him so the shit was forced down his throat. That phrase; by the way, was one of the ones defended by Kotaku as being nothing more than hyperbole. And Kotaku actually FOUGHT to keep it on their comments section.

So rather than illustrating that that the trolls are using sexist language--maybe you should put the straw man down and get to the point of the statement. Why is the behavior of the media radically different? You said time, but the editorial staff during both periods is thesame(It's only been 6 years, man). ALSO, I've given you plenty of examples of how these sites genuinely treat stories of harassment differently (Smed vs Anita)--and then I've linked an editor that have flat out SAID they don't do things like fact check ect on sexist harassment claims. So please, tell me why it's different? Is it different BECAUSE the trolls are using sexism? Is it different BECAUSE the targets are women now? Stop tossing out "the reason for the attacks is because they are women"--no, Tan, we have ample evidence that men are subject to hyperbolic threats through anonymous messages as well (Just instead of sexist remarks, it's general threats of violence). So tell me why, given two similar examples, the media's reaction is soradicallydifferent. Why did YOU claim Thompson was on a witch hunt andthatwas the reason but for Anita it's because "she's a woman"?

Tanoomba_sl said:

You WANT to believe these sexist assholes have a good point but are just expressing it the wrong way. Unfortunately, you're completely and utterly delusional and it pains me that you can't see the forest for the trees. There are many good fights worth fighting. Do you know why this one is so popular? BECAUSE IT ALLOWS SEXIST ASSHOLES TO FULFILL THEIR DESIRE TO HATE ON WOMEN. I honestly don't understand how you can't see that. There are so many injustices in this world, so much corruption, so much cheating and lying and abusing and outright killing, but apparently the one issue that all these guys consider worth fighting for is a woman who thought it might be worthwhile to criticize the portrayal of women in video games. That's the greatest irony of all. People complaining that Sarkeesian can't be criticized when her one contribution to gaming has been constructive criticism, and that's what all these guys HATE.
So you're anti-bias? That's fantastic! Bias exists on a gargantuan scale within a tremendous spectrum of ideas expressed in the world. If the one sliver you choose to focus on happens to be the same one that the lowest scum of the Earth have chosen to hijack for their sick and twisted reasons, I don't know what to tell you. I would think if there was actual concern there, one would try to shut these assholes up since they're doing so much obvious harm to the actual "legitimate criticism warriors" (LCWs) trying to draw attention to actual flaws within gaming journalism. If there was no actual concern there, I imagine the only rational decision would be to choose another of the many examples of bias in journalism.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, this is the second time today that the tired "there are more important issues" has been trotted out on me. Tan, I spend my whole life dealing with "more important issues" (You know, actual real world problems). My hobbies though, are special to me (Gaming, Writing here). So, for gaming, topics get attention that might seem trivial because that's my hobby and by it's nature a hobby is a traiviality; so by your logic now one should game, because you know, the world has problems. As for writing here--on this board Idon'thave to quadruple check my work or pass it in front of 6 tiers of media just to get it put out the door; or I don't have to worry about injuring some real life relationship by speaking my mind. So I feel I have more freedom to discuss topics than I do with people in the real world. That being said, I've written, on this board (Or FoH) extensively about a lot of subjects, everything from corporate scandals, to the malfeasance and terrible practices of game producers (In fact, this same argument was used on me when I was talking about how terrible EA is.). I know it's hard to accept, but amazingly, someonecandeal with multiple tiers of issues at thesame time. (I know, mindBLOWNright?)

You know what's even more amazing, Tan? I can sit here and discuss your ridiculous bias and inability to see it, and I can ALSO chastise sexist assholes (Mind BLOWN number two, right?). In fact, myself, and many posters of this board have been doing just that, and even agreeing with YOU, in the Redpill thread. It's almost like.....real people have to deal with multiple problems at once. I know, crazy. In the end I've denounced the trolls in just about the strongest language possible, calling them terrible troglodytes and horrible sexist assholes; you've SEEN me chastise sexism openly on this forum. So you telling me "I should be conerned with the sexist trolls" is simply just another red herring; I do deal with the trolls. We, as gamers, have been dealing with them since 1996, when most of us were elated we didn't have to pay-by-minute on AOL anymore and we could play Diablo online. So please, don't assume just because I'm sitting here explaining why you're being silly, that I've not ALSO dealt with the trolls. I assure you, unlike you, I can separatedistinctproblems and criticize you/gaming media, while ALSO criticizing the trolls that are attacking them.

As for my views being the same as the "lowest scum on earth"--let me use your debating tactics for a moment. Do you really believe that a bunch of trolls, who make sexist comments on anon message boards, are the lowest scum on earth? Lower than the rapists and sexual mutilators in Congo, or the men using children soldiers in Juarez, or the mass beheadings by ISIS? Are all these terrible men eclipsed by internet trolls?My my. I had no idea they were soterrible. Sounds like rather than fighting me; you should go and be debating them, no? Why are you wasting your time with someone you know isn't sexist? Shouldn't you be devoting ALL of your energy to these trolls who are worse sexists than men who cut the tits off women and sell their children into slavery? Seems like an awful waste of your time, Tan--when such important issues plague the world. (Or, you know, you could just stay here and debate because you enjoy debating here as a past time. But fuck me, what do I know?)

gremlinz273_sl said:

Judging by your location, your part of the group that got assigned the drop out's religion. It's okay you didn't quite make the cut, because you know, religion. And this is the penalty for lying to a Roman.

Click to expand...

wat

Sebudai_sl said:

wat

Click to expand...

I think he called you a mormon.

Anyway, the TFYC-the owner who was doxxed by Zoe; and harassed, has had his accounts hacked. Multiple other GG heads have had harassment in RL; and the progenitor of #notyourshield had his work called and was fired.

However, I am skeptical of all these until I see evidence(Yes, even people I agree with--I want evidence, or some verification). But it will be interesting to see if this harassment gets tossed up without verified sources like the Zoe/Anita harassment was (And I'm talking about BEFORE the last round at the start of the Gamergate scandal)...Since, you know, it's been said by two editors that it was their policy to signal boost harassment without verification.

I wanna put a baby in her. Feet first.