Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PJW wrote:
And, as I've pointed out, it's:

1) A completely hypothetical victory, because we don't know what the final effect will be. If the website replaces the ads immediately then they've lost nothing.

2) A "victory" that is all about petty blog drama instead of legitimate issues. This isn't about corruption, it's about having a riot because someone said a mean thing about GJWs.

That's true neither yourself, nor myself, have a crystal ball.

However if more advertisers get involved it could cause a repeat of what happened to News of the World:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011959/News-World-closes-key-clients-pull-adverts.html

And if you read the articles in question you'll notice that "gamers" is referring to a specific group of people (GJWs) that are a subset of "people who play games". The better title would be "GJWs don't have to be your audience, GJWs are over". It's nothing more than an article advocating focusing on the non-GJW gamers.

Maybe you should email them to change the article title?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
[However if more advertisers get involved it could cause a repeat of what happened to News of the World:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011959/News-World-closes-key-clients-pull-adverts.html

Emphasis on "could". Maybe it's a petty "victory" in a blog vendetta that has nothing to do with any legitimate issues, maybe it's not even that.

Also, you'll notice that the News of the World incident involved something much more serious than saying something mean about GJWs.

Maybe you should email them to change the article title?

Why? If you read the article instead it's perfectly clear what they're talking about.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 PJW wrote:
Then why are you presenting it as such an important "victory"?

Because it. . .is? A sponsor has dropped a corrupt website over anti-consumer practices.

GJWs =/= all gamers.

"Gamers don't have to be your audience, Gamers are over" doesn't ring a teeny tiny little bell?

So, from what I understand is this:
The people that have actively said that all gamers are horribly people, now pretend to represent the gamer community and speak for them? Um....okay.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 PJW wrote:
Then why are you presenting it as such an important "victory"?

Because it. . .is? A sponsor has dropped a corrupt website over anti-consumer practices.

GJWs =/= all gamers.

"Gamers don't have to be your audience, Gamers are over" doesn't ring a teeny tiny little bell?

So, from what I understand is this:
The people that have actively said that all gamers are horribly people, now pretend to represent the gamer community and speak for them? Um....okay.

Yep. And also deny their existance.

And also accuse them of censorship while not once having represented their voice in all this.

 PJW wrote:
Emphasis on "could". Maybe it's a petty "victory" in a blog vendetta that has nothing to do with any legitimate issues, maybe it's not even that.

Also, you'll notice that the News of the World incident involved something much more serious than saying something mean about GJWs.

I chose it as an example of of what happens when advertisers stop giving their sweet, sweet ad money. Not as an example of severity after all, I don't recall News of the World falling foul of the consumer, instead falling foul to privacy laws

Why? If you read the article instead it's perfectly clear what they're talking about.

So you're fine with an innacurate article title? That's fair enough if you are.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, I'm sick of hearing every single controversy have the "-gate" name attached by people who probably have no clue where the term came from. .

Watergate, right?

There's also #comicgate now

Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.

 Yonan wrote:
Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.

Oh good, now the next thing to defend from the evil SJWs is awful comic book covers. What kind of miserable hellworld would it be if comic book artists had to have actual talent instead of just making porn for easy sales! It's a good thing we have nice safe "feminists" like Sommers to tell us that everything is ok, and not to listen to those awful man-hating extremists.

 Yonan wrote:
Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.

Wait, I don't read comics? Then what have I been spending all my money on these past two years?

Seriously. It is possible to be involved in something and still think it can be improved. Not everyone that disagrees with you is some hideous SJW bogeyman coming in from outside gaming to ruin your hobbies because they hate fun.

 Goliath wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.

Wait, I don't read comics? Then what have I been spending all my money on these past two years?

Seriously. It is possible to be involved in something and still think it can be improved. Not everyone that disagrees with you is some hideous SJW bogeyman coming in from outside gaming to ruin your hobbies because they hate fun.

No one called you an SJW. This is the problem.

 Yonan wrote:
No one called you an SJW. This is the problem.

OH GOD THE SKY IS FALLING A SJW DIDN'T RESEARCH EVERY EXAMPLE OF TERRIBLE COMIC BOOK ART BEFORE POINTING OUT THAT A COMIC BOOK COVER IS TERRIBLE.

Seriously though, this is why the GJW crusade is such a joke. It's all just vague rage about how evil man-hating feminists want to destroy everything men love, just because someone dared to criticize the GJWs' beloved hobbies.

 Bromsy wrote:
You need to stop calling the 'other side' rape supporters. That's embracing the worst aspects of their tactics.

So, uh, where did I (or Peregrine, or anyone that is annoyed by thos GJW rants) called anyone “rape supporters”, or use any similar tactics?

 Asherian Command wrote:
All of you. And I am talking to all of you. Be respectful. Follow dakka rules....
[…]
Also Peregrine that post about GJW is kind of stupid and does not help your cause.

So, you want people to be respectful and polite to each other, and then you tell Peregrine that what he posted was “kind of stupid”?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Sorry I forgot websites only have a binary state between insulting and pandering. I was hoping for more options. Why are you trying to take options away Hybrid?

Are you missing the point that you did nothing to make them less corrupt (because you only worked on having them not hurt your little feelings by calling you mean names) on purpose ?
Gamergate is about corruption like violent hooliganism is about football .

 Asherian Command wrote:
Not all the time. A review does not always have to be an opinion.

By the very definition, it has. Else, it would be called a description, not a review.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Hahaha Yes the group of 90 people is more profitable than the 200,000 people.

There are that many GJW? Where did you get those numbers from?

 Asherian Command wrote:
you are sounding like a parody of yourself now. Please stop before I can't stop laughing too hard at your opinions.

Whatever happened to “Be polite and respectful to your fellow dakkanauts” you were preaching a few messages ago…
Is this yet one more examples of you wanting to apply your rules on others but not on yourself?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
So you're fine with an innacurate article title? That's fair enough if you are.

Did Peregrine not make it crystal clear that he thought video game press was just tabloid? I think it was pretty clear. Do you expect non-click-bait titles?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Are you missing the point that you did nothing to make them less corrupt (because you only worked on having them not hurt your little feelings by calling you mean names) on purpose ?
Gamergate is about corruption like violent hooliganism is about football

You had no point. You looked down at your hands, and the point was gone. Maybe you left it on the bus? Maybe the point was inside you all along.

Did Peregrine not make it crystal clear that he thought video game press was just tabloid? I think it was pretty clear. Do you expect non-click-bait titles?

What part of "That's fair enough if you are" didn't you understand?

It's time for a link dump. I'm sorry if some of these have been posted in the past few pages, but I'm quickly skimming and want to get them down:

Hey Gamers, let's be friends! (piece has a political slant)
Making sense of #GamerGate (it's fething PJMedia! Of course it has a slant!)
And speaking of political slants...
Good Morning Orthodoxy #1 (from TechRaptor, a site I'm liking more and more)
Good Morning Orthodoxy #2
Good Morning Orthodoxy #3
Good Morning Orthodoxy #4
Good Morning Orthodoxy #5 (last part's not up yet as far as I can see)

And that's all.

And yeah, so, Intel pulled their ads. Well, that makes sense. When the company you've chosen to pay to broadcast your advertisements starts actively attacking the people you're trying to advertise to - and especially when it's Leigh Alexander doing the attacking - it's time to hit that ol' ejector button.

 Compel wrote:
To be honest, I don't really know if there is a way to answer his arguments without sounding like a pantomine.

"Oh no they won't!"
"Oh yes they will!"

"He's behind you!"
"Where?"
"Behind you!!!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And speaking of political slants...

Honestly, this isn't a very convincing argument. The political test shows a lot of libertarians (in line with Reddit's overall political bias), but the left/right bias is a lot shakier. For example, is legalization of drugs a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue? It depends on how you present it. It could be a case of ending a pointless war on drugs that disproportionately impacts minorities and poor people, which would be a left-wing framing. Or you could present it as deregulating business and removing obstacles to making a profit from drugs, a clear right-wing framing. In my experience this is something political tests get wrong, people who are clearly right-wing libertarians score far left of where they should because the tests label various "small government" issues as left-wing.

And then you have Sommers, the GJW idol, who is a member of a right-wing organization and eagerly quotes right-wing ideology about "gender feminism" vs. "equality feminism". So even if GJWs score left of the republican party they seem quite happy to embrace right-wing arguments as long as they favor video games.

Good Morning Orthodoxy #1 (from TechRaptor, a site I'm liking more and more)
Good Morning Orthodoxy #2
Good Morning Orthodoxy #3
Good Morning Orthodoxy #4
Good Morning Orthodoxy #5 (last part's not up yet as far as I can see)

Now let's just wait and see how long it takes for you to be given a "STOP GOING OFF TOPIC WITH THIS DISCUSSION OF WOMEN IN GAMES" lecture. Also, all of your links after the first one are broken.

(We all know it's not going to happen, but it's a safe bet that it would if I started responding to those arguments.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.

Oh good, now the next thing to defend from the evil SJWs is awful comic book covers. What kind of miserable hellworld would it be if comic book artists had to have actual talent instead of just making porn for easy sales! It's a good thing we have nice safe "feminists" like Sommers to tell us that everything is ok, and not to listen to those awful man-hating extremists.

Are we referring to the Spider Man Comic that featured a female Spider Woman in a so called "sexualised" ass-up pose?

The pose that also had a direct equivalent cover for the male Spiderman, but which SJW's conveniently overlook?

Consistency, who needs it eh?

No.

It was a spider-woman comic, and the piece in question was a variant cover --drawn by an artist who specialises in "erotic" comic book art.


One of the main criticisms was quite how similar the pose was/is to one of his more... infamous ..? .. or somesuch pieces

NWS perhaps



There was no Spider-man cover release for this forthcoming comic so I'm not sure what cover you're referring to ?


Anyway we appear to have moved far from the original topic to general bashing of other people, so we're done.