Can someone accurately explain GameGate in a sentence?

[paulgiamatti]

If Glenzig ever posts something more than a couple sentences long, you can safely assume it was copied and pasted from an uncredited source.

[loramin]

P.S. Before anyone says "well she wasn't really worried about a crazy psycho", imagine this: you figure out a way to piss off everyone here worse than Platlord, Lron, and TMO combined. RnF already had doxing and threats before, but now every member of that community is angrier than they've ever been, and it's at you.

Even though most are completely harmless, wouldn't you worry that perhaps one of them might take things a bit farther than the rest, that perhaps one person here is capable of raping or killing? Now imagine a community several orders of magnitude bigger, and ask the same questions.

Even if you still say "no, I'd be cool", I think it's hard to fault someone for feeling differently when it really happens to them.

[Grimfan]

I'll be honest with you, I'm not a real big fan of her very base analyzing of games. I think she (and the other people involved in GG on both sides) really play up the threats. One thing that really bothers me in all of this is that an article will be written about it, and most of the comments are about how the article is brave, or wonderful, or spot on, and then one comment will tell the writer to die, and that comment will breed another article about how awful people are because they want the author of the article, or the person the article is written about to die. I'm getting kind of tired of it. It's a shitty loop, and it's getting tiring at this point.

If anyone is curious, this is what I'm talking about;

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-on-game-over/

Is it entirely necessary that we need to wrap up the user comments and spend a whole bunch of time on how the internet is full of thugs? I guess, but I'm probably just going to check out on the whole thing at this point.

Also, I want to direct this towards iruinedyourday, I know that you like her a lot, but if you actually play the games that she is "in depth" analyzing with her 5 second clips and sound bytes you'll see that they're not all the way she portrays them. There's a lot she leaves out of the games, and she has a tendency to focus on the negative instead of looking for anything positive. It's possible to have a strong female lead character in most of the Bioware games (bikini optional) and that's not even mentioned for the most part. The game she even mentioned as a good example had nothing to do with gender roles and instead handled the way you treat a child going through emotional issues.

She didn't touch, and won't touch games like To the Moon, The Walking Dead, Mass Effect, Papers, Please, Shadow Run Returns, etc. They do not hold any gut wrenching sexism for her to expose and she will not give them the time they deserve because they cannot make a point for her, and they don't act as good bait to outrage people.

Finally, I want to make mention that I think the way journalism is handled right now in games is pretty shitty. The fact that publishers can actually ask reviewers to give them a good score or else they will not give the reviewer an early access copy to review their game is pretty much pure bullshit. That's the ethical issue I think should really be discussed in all this.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If Glenzig ever posts something more than a couple sentences long, you can safely assume it was copied and pasted from an uncredited source.

Yup.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.S. Before anyone says "well she wasn't really worried about a crazy psycho", imagine this: you figure out a way to piss off everyone here worse than Platlord, Lron, and TMO combined. RnF already had doxing and threats before, but now every member of that community is angrier than they've ever been, and it's at you.

Even though most are completely harmless, wouldn't you worry that perhaps one of them might take things a bit farther than the rest, that perhaps one person here is capable of raping or killing? Now imagine a community several orders of magnitude bigger, and ask the same questions.

Even if you still say "no, I'd be cool", I think it's hard to fault someone for feeling differently when it really happens to them.

No. If a psycho wanted me dead that badly I'm sure they would be able to do it during my day to day activities while I'm not on high alert. That would be much easier than killing me in public with security surrounding me. But, when you are a professional victim trusting the proper authorities and using common sense doesn't get the media attention you crave.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What do these people have to do to convince you that they're a threat to public safety?

From Slate: 287 people have been killed in school shootings (1980-2012), or < 15 people per year.

Meanwhile cars kill 30,000 people per year and cancer kills 500,000.

To make me seriously care about this, they'd have to be killing at about 100 times the current rate. It is not a problem.

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti

Enforcing a no firearms policy on a college campus for one event after a very serious threat is not a violation of rights. It's common sense.

I don't see how you can say this with a straight face. In the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment declares that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Enforcing a no firearms policy is obviously a violation of those rights. A college campus is government property. If she wants to give her talk in a private building, she can enforce whatever rules the owner will let her get away with.

Again, I support the rights of the game developers to make whatever games they want, the feminists to complain, and the gamers to complain about the feminists complaining. But keep your dirty paws of my Bill of Rights.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool. I'm not saying the school did anything wrong at all: like you said, all the professionals felt a gun ban was unnecessary. Plus, Utah already has their law and it won't change because of her.

This is correct.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But I also don't think Anita did anything wrong: she has every right to chose when, where and if she speaks. If I got death threats for weeks, and then specific ones for that event, I might be concerned about speaking there too. When you're worried about a crazy psycho trying to kill you, the idea of an audience full of gun-bearers can be a little intimidating.

She's a professional victim, that was the perfect venue for her to exacerbate the threat into a fucking hurricane... which she later did on national media.
If you look closer into the event though, you'll see that it was going to be an open forum with an unfiltered Q&A session, Anita has a history of only doing closed speeches and pre-approved questions. This is the real reason she canceled.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All I was saying was, had the school decided to ban guns at the event because they wanted to placate their speaker, it wouldn't have been a constitutional violation.

Would it be a constitutional violation? Of course not, it's private property, they can set/change the rules whenever the hell they want.

Would it be stupid? Absolutely. Gun free zones don't work, this has been quantifiably proven over the past twenty years. Mass shootings only happen in gun free zones, the most violent cities in the country have strict gun free policies.

If anything, disarming the bystanders only invites someone to come in and do damage. If you were planning an attack and you found out the speaker just disarmed all of your targets... do math.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.S. Before anyone says "well she wasn't really worried about a crazy psycho", imagine this: you figure out a way to piss off everyone here worse than Platlord, Lron, and TMO combined. RnF already had doxing and threats before, but now every member of that community is angrier than they've ever been, and it's at you.

Even though most are completely harmless, wouldn't you worry that perhaps one of them might take things a bit farther than the rest, that perhaps one person here is capable of raping or killing? Now imagine a community several orders of magnitude bigger, and ask the same questions.

Even if you still say "no, I'd be cool", I think it's hard to fault someone for feeling differently when it really happens to them.

Been there already. Guess what. In the history of the world there have been 0 cases of a publicly released threat actually going through. The increased police presence at the college was literally for peace of mind and nothing more.

[paulgiamatti]

Well, there you have it folks. People like Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodgers are not a threat to public safety. Good thing we have Raev here to clear that up for us.

[Raev]

Statistics before emotions, Paul.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. If a psycho wanted me dead that badly I'm sure they would be able to do it during my day to day activities while I'm not on high alert. That would be much easier than killing me in public with security surrounding me.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the history of the world there have been 0 cases of a publicly released threat actually going through. The increased police presence at the college was literally for peace of mind and nothing more.

You're both thinking way too rationally about this. Sure a perfectly logical psycho would assassinate their victim like Dexter or Solid Snake, but I don't think "rational" and "psychotic killer" really go together. That dude in Arizona went up to a congress woman, with security guards, in broad daylight, and shot her. Bat shit crazy people do that sort of thing.

Similarly, when someone fears for their life, they don't think "am I more likely to be killed by lightning or a psycho killer?" (By the way, that's a dumb comparison people keep making because the rate of people who die after getting death threats is very different from the rate of people in the general population). Most people, when they get a death threat, think "OMFG someone is trying to kill me BECAUSE THEY SENT ME A LETTER SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO KILL ME!"

Now I don't care how much you disagree with her point of view, her PR strategy, or her career as a "professional victim" (whatever that even means). I personally don't have strong feelings about her one way or the other. What I do have strong feelings about is that no one should have to put up with death threats because someone disagrees with their point of view, whether that person is Salmon Rushdie, President Obama, or Anita. And anyone who does get those threats definitely shouldn't have to go anywhere that they've been specifically targeted with a death threat if they don't want to.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is correct.
Would it be a constitutional violation? Of course not, it's private property, they can set/change the rules whenever the hell they want.

I wasn't arguing with you on that point; someone earlier in the thread (to lazy to see who) was making that claim.