Can someone accurately explain GameGate in a sentence?

[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.

[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.

[Raev]

Statistics before emotions, Paul.

[paulgiamatti]

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

Statistics before emotions, Paul.

I agree. What you're doing, however, is reducing the statement "people like Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodgers are a threat to public safety" to emotion. There are a couple problems with this. One; if 20 grade-school age children lying dead in a pool of their own blood doesn't evoke an emotional response from you, there's something wrong with you. And two; it's simply a factual statement.

Again, how many people have to die or get shot before you accept that this is a real problem? What about the 70 victims of James Holmes? What about the 56 victims of Seung-Hui Choi? What about the 43 victims of Nidal Malik? What about the 34 victims of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? What about the 27 victims of Steven Kazmierczak? What about the 25 victims of Mark Barton? What about the 17 victims of Jiverly Wong? What about the 14 victims of Larry Ashbrook? What about the 13 victims of Robert Hawkins? What about the 12 victims of Eduardo Sencion? What about the nine victims of Terry Ratzmann? What about the nine victims of Jeffrey Weise? What about the nine victims of Omar Thornton? What about the eight victims of Charles Thornton? What about the eight victims of Robert Stewart? What about the eight victims of Scott Dekraai? What about the seven victims of Michael McDermott? What about the seven victims of Doug Williams? What about the seven victims of Kyle Huff? What about the seven victims of Jared Loughner? What about the seven victims of One Goh? What about the five victims of Charles Roberts? What about the five victims of Sulejman Talovic? What about the five victims of Jake England? What about the five victims of Ian Stawicki? What about the five victims of Andrew Engeldinger? What about the three victims of Thomas Lane? What about the two victims of Jacob Roberts?

What you're doing is akin to saying there were merely 3,000 victims from the attack on the World Trade Center, a number that amounted to roughly one 95,000th of the United States population at the time, therefore this attack shouldn't have been taken seriously - therefore ideas like jihad and martyrdom that pervade the Muslim world aren't actually real problems. After all, the chance you would've died from an attack the likes of which we saw on 9/11 are only one in 95,000, right?

What you're saying is psychopathy isn't actually a real problem, and guns being readily available to psychopaths isn't actually a real problem because they don't kill enough people yet. Oh, but once they take a sizable chunk out of our population, then we ought to do something about it. Never mind these marginal numbers of casualties and people injured we currently have to deal with, the odds that it'll happen to you is less than the odds of other things killing you, therefore they're not worth being concerned about at all.

[Estolcles]

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

I agree. What you're doing, however, is reducing the statement "people like Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodgers are a threat to public safety" to emotion. There are a couple problems with this. One; if 20 grade-school age children lying dead in a pool of their own blood doesn't evoke an emotional response from you, there's something wrong with you. And two; it's simply a factual statement.

Again, how many people have to die or get shot before you accept that this is a real problem? What about the 70 victims of James Holmes? What about the 56 victims of Seung-Hui Choi? What about the 43 victims of Nidal Malik? What about the 34 victims of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? What about the 27 victims of Steven Kazmierczak? What about the 25 victims of Mark Barton? What about the 17 victims of Jiverly Wong? What about the 14 victims of Larry Ashbrook? What about the 13 victims of Robert Hawkins? What about the 12 victims of Eduardo Sencion? What about the nine victims of Terry Ratzmann? What about the nine victims of Jeffrey Weise? What about the nine victims of Omar Thornton? What about the eight victims of Charles Thornton? What about the eight victims of Robert Stewart? What about the eight victims of Scott Dekraai? What about the seven victims of Michael McDermott? What about the seven victims of Doug Williams? What about the seven victims of Kyle Huff? What about the seven victims of Jared Loughner? What about the seven victims of One Goh? What about the five victims of Charles Roberts? What about the five victims of Sulejman Talovic? What about the five victims of Jake England? What about the five victims of Ian Stawicki? What about the five victims of Andrew Engeldinger? What about the three victims of Thomas Lane? What about the two victims of Jacob Roberts?

What you're doing is akin to saying there were merely 3,000 victims from the attack on the World Trade Center, a number that amounted to roughly one 95,000th of the United States population at the time, therefore this attack shouldn't have been taken seriously - therefore ideas like jihad and martyrdom that pervade the Muslim world aren't actually real problems. After all, the chance you would've died from an attack the likes of which we saw on 9/11 are only one in 95,000, right?

What you're saying is psychopathy isn't actually a real problem, and guns being readily available to psychopaths isn't actually a real problem because they don't kill enough people yet. Oh, but once they take a sizable chunk out of our population, then we ought to do something about it. Never mind these marginal numbers of casualties and people injured we currently have to deal with, the odds that it'll happen to you is less than the odds of other things killing you, therefore they're not worth being concerned about at all.

What about the 2 victims of Chris Benoit?

[Raev]

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

I agree. What you're doing, however, is reducing the statement "people like Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodgers are a threat to public safety" to emotion. There are a couple problems with this. One; if 20 grade-school age children lying dead in a pool of their own blood doesn't evoke an emotional response from you, there's something wrong with you. And two; it's simply a factual statement.

No one wants to see children dead. If I could put on my superman cape and deflect the bullets from those various shootings then I would without hesitation. There is a famous quote that I cannot quite remember right now - I believe it was Justice Holmes - which went something along the lines of "When I make rulings which fix one problem, how can I be sure I am not creating new problems?"

Arguing that the government should take weapons away from people is not at all guaranteed to lower violence. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent crimes all the time, and criminals don't bother to obtain concealed carry permits. The list of sheriff's associations against gun control is long and growing. Furthermore, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give the citizens some means of protection against government oppression.

This is where the emotion vs reason thing comes in: it actually takes courage NOT to act in the face of atrocity, knowing the cure would be worse than the disease. Liberty comes with a price: free speech and the right to bear arms both have down sides. But the upsides are greater.

[LulzSect]

infuriating

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

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

infuriating

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Awesome.


Not to detail this lovely thread, but any Bill Waterson fans out there should know that he recently came out of retirement (briefly) to do a few guest comics in Perals Before Swine. It's not Calvin and Hobbes, but it's still fun.

The plot starts here:
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/06/02

but Bill's part doesn't start until here:
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/06/04

... and now back to your regularly scheduled RnF.

[loramin]

er derail, not detail

[JayN]

so wait wemon are being whores on the innernets now too? say it aint so