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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Issue is, even inside the lore debate you come across it, we have had discussions on the realism of female guardsmen in 40K on Dakka. People drag politics into everything if the want to, nothing is safe. One follow up sentence on how you feel about a certain lore aspect can quickly slip into the political. Remember the debate on Grey Knights when they suddenly started to wear the latest fashion made from 100% Sister of Battle?

Let me show you how I handle these things:

*Shrug* "I just don't care that much about it."

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And ends in both sides trying to paint your little group as bad to the general public. People are dramatic, I've seen it happen. And this is how the general public came to view the gamergate 'community' as bad so easily, people went "look, they're shutting me out" and showing the bad eggs to them.

Then there's two sides of an argument with conflicting stories, both booted out of my hypothetical store. They can have whatever opinions they want outside, in the street. Other people- more people are inside, having fun.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes, but he is still part of a community in the wider hobby. He is a bad egg tolerated in his group. But its really easy to use him to make all of us look bad. He is part of the hobby. And when people like Sarkeesian point those out, its hard to argue that they aren't bad people. For the good of the overal community he should not be in it, yet he is.

Well, if someone's actually toxic and you're not putting them out- it's kind of on you, or whoever makes the decisions.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But they literally are arguing that rape threats are a joke and not a big deal on a publically viewable hobby forum in relation fi her speaking role. I still don't agree with the use in private, but as said, what you don't know you can't adress.

Yeah, they're actually wrong. Communicating a threat to someone is wrong. Not a joke.

And you can not agree with what I do in private all day long. It's not going to change it and it's never going to be something you're exposed to. So it's really not a concern.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How many actual instances of corruption did gamergate uncover and expose?

Didn't that girl end up coming out and admitting to an affair with one of the employees of the publication? Or was it the man himself when his spouse caught him.

And not long after, quite a few publications were disclosing their conflicts of interest.

You're still wrong about how it started. It started because as soon as that happened, publications started pissing all over gamers. But hey, interpret it how you like. I think their passion was misguided on an already dead industry that has been well-known to be incestuous and shady.

She did have a relationship with someone who mentioned her game in a list of upcoming games, as I said. That was all.

And no, Gamergate did not start due to publications pissing on gamers. It started due to people organising harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn and others.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/wiki/timeline

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yeah, you mean you think you uncovered a conflict of interest in an journalistic industry that is dependent on the game industry's good will for survival and being paid by the game industry to go to reveals and conventions? Say it ain't so!

True, but you're also missing the point.

See, we don't need gaming journalism. We don't need a third party between us and a gaming company. And we damned sure don't need them if they're going to use their position to get laid and when they get called on it, lash out at the community they claim to represent.

Truth is, the target wasn't the gaming journalism industry. It 'changing' wasn't the objective, but it was a second-order effect. The target was the consumer, who should realize exactly what they're buying when they pick up a game journo rag or click on one of their pages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

She did have a relationship with someone who mentioned her game in a list of upcoming games, as I said.

And no, Gamergate did not start due to publications pissing on gamers. It started due to people organising harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn and others.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/wiki/timeline

Oh, wow- look at that. An Anti-Gamergate page. Must be entirely objective and completely unbiased.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

She did have a relationship with someone who mentioned her game in a list of upcoming games, as I said.

And no, Gamergate did not start due to publications pissing on gamers. It started due to people organising harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn and others.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/wiki/timeline

Oh, wow- look at that. An Anti-Gamergate page. Must be entirely objective and completely unbiased.

Oh wow, look at that. Not actually engaging with the source or disputing it in any way.

How like you.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yeah, you mean you think you uncovered a conflict of interest in an journalistic industry that is dependent on the game industry's good will for survival and being paid by the game industry to go to reveals and conventions? Say it ain't so!

True, but you're also missing the point.

See, we don't need gaming journalism. We don't need a third party between us and a gaming company. And we damned sure don't need them if they're going to use their position to get laid and when they get called on it, lash out at the community they claim to represent.

Truth is, the target wasn't the gaming journalism industry. It 'changing' wasn't the objective, but it was a second-order effect. The target was the consumer, who should realize exactly what they're buying when they pick up a game journo rag or click on one of their pages.

I mean only a a total idiot would not realize the massive conflict of interest these people have. From magazines to websites, almost all their adverts are for videogames. Who do these people think pays for these adds? Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? Anyone who considers it more than infotainment really missed the memo since at least the mid 2000's.

People were making mountains out of mole hills. Who cares if it was actually true that a dev slept with reporters for good reviews, everybody already knew the reviews were manufactured to the desire of the client anyway, regardless of any potential sexual favors. It was an absolutely ridiculous 'controversy' that even slowpoke had already moved on from. It was hilarious to see the community attempting to 'convince' game journalists to turn on the people paying their bills though, makes you wonder how many of them didn't even bother turning off add blocker going on the sites.

The community manufactured outrage and drama years after it would have made sense, it exploded in their face. Why did they do it? Well everyone has their theories, but the common one is absolute bollocks.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Oh wow, look at that. Not actually engaging with the content.

How like you.

Are you implying that a site dedicated to the opposition of Gamergate should be determined as a credible, unbiased source of information on Gamergate?

Where do you get information on black crime statistics, Stormfront?

"How like me" indeed. Expecting a credible source instead of the absolute worst source someone could scrounge on the internet. Remind me to lower my expectations.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Oh wow, look at that. Not actually engaging with the content.

How like you.

Are you implying that a site dedicated to the opposition of Gamergate should be determined as a credible, unbiased source of information on Gamergate?

Where do you get information on black crime statistics, Stormfront?

"How like me" indeed. Expecting a credible source instead of the absolute worst source someone could scrounge on the internet. Remind me to lower my expectations.

The list has citations and links to the relevant posts. Do you have any evidence that any of what it shows is untrue?

Lets use wikipedia instead then, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I mean only a a total idiot would not realize the massive conflict of interest these people have. From magazines to websites, almost all their adverts are for videogames. Who do these people think pays for these adds? Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? Anyone who considers it more than infotainment really missed the memo since at least the mid 2000's.

And I'm gonna blow your mind here (And just your mind, don't get any cheeky ideas- you haven't bought me dinner and drinks): I agree. Except not mid-2000's. You have no idea how they hyped up shovelware as far back as the 90's and even in the 80's. Gaming Journalism is gonna shill, no matter what. And the GG crowd should have focused instead on the shady activity of gaming companies (lockboxes, release-date DLC, BUYING THE DLC TO GET THE ACTUAL ENDING OF A GAME)- all these things are NOW becoming major issues and should have been tackled back then, and if the game journalists tried to defend them we should have given them the finger and fought harder.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
People were making mountains out of mole hills. Who cares if it was actually true that a dev slept with reporters for good reviews, everybody already knew the reviews were manufactured to the desire of the client anyway, regardless of any potential sexual favors. It was an absolutely ridiculous 'controversy' that even slowpoke had already moves on from. It was hilarious to see the community attempting to 'convince' game journalists to turn on the people paying their bills though, makes you wonder how many of them didn't even bother turning off add blocker going on the sites.

Yeah, and her 'favorable review' was almost a sad nod out of obligation. The problem was attacking their customers- and by all standards, the customers had a right to be mad right back.

But yeah, it was a mole hill. It could have sparked a fire that did something decent, but it scattered and went nowhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The list has citations and links to the relevant posts. Do you have any evidence that any of what is shows is untrue?Lets use wikipedia instead then, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

Oh wow, link to Polygon and Kotaku

So credible

Much objective

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The list has citations and links to the relevant posts. Do you have any evidence that any of what is shows is untrue?Lets use wikipedia instead then, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

Oh wow, link to Polygon and Kotaku

So credible

Much objective

That would be the Kotaku that exposed the corruption which caused Gamespot to fire one of their reviewers? You know, more to expose corruption in gaming journalism than any gamergater?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
That would be the Kotaku that exposed the corruption which caused Gamespot to fire one of their reviewers? You know, more to expose corruption in gaming journalism than any gamergater?

You mean 'covering a consumer outrage'? Yeah, they really 'exposed' something that was already getting flash-mob protests (remember those?). Hell, if you want to be specific- Cracked was covering this kind of nonsense long before Kotaku's hipsters started trawling Twitter for a story.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
That would be the Kotaku that exposed the corruption which caused Gamespot to fire one of their reviewers? You know, more to expose corruption in gaming journalism than any gamergater?

You mean 'covering a consumer outrage'? Yeah, they really 'exposed' something that was already getting flash-mob protests (remember those?). Hell, if you want to be specific- Cracked was covering this kind of nonsense long before Kotaku's hipsters started trawling Twitter for a story.

Nope. They found the definitive proof to what had previously been rumour and speculation.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Nope. They found the definitive proof to what had previously been rumour and speculation.

Uh... you mean the 'proof' being "The guy wrote an unfavorable review in a magazine full of ads for that game and immediately got fired" that was obvious to literally everyone as soon as it happened?

It's clear that you're completely convinced that I'm a 100% supporter of Gamergate. No, it was like watching your kid pick up a bat and thinking he was finally going to learn to play baseball... and then watching him waste his time smashing watermelons in the back yard.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I mean only a a total idiot would not realize the massive conflict of interest these people have. From magazines to websites, almost all their adverts are for videogames. Who do these people think pays for these adds? Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? Anyone who considers it more than infotainment really missed the memo since at least the mid 2000's.

And I'm gonna blow your mind here (And just your mind, don't get any cheeky ideas- you haven't bought me dinner and drinks): I agree. Except not mid-2000's. You have no idea how they hyped up shovelware as far back as the 90's and even in the 80's. Gaming Journalism is gonna shill, no matter what. And the GG crowd should have focused instead on the shady activity of gaming companies (lockboxes, release-date DLC, BUYING THE DLC TO GET THE ACTUAL ENDING OF A GAME)- all these things are NOW becoming major issues and should have been tackled back then, and if the game journalists tried to defend them we should have given them the finger and fought harder.

It doesn't really blow my mind, it depends on age. I'm old enough to remember it in the 90's at least. But the move to the internet made it even more acute which is why I picked the mid 2000's. Magazine sales start to decline and people don't pay to view your site. Income from your reader base takes a large hit. Either the industry steps up with adverts and paid reviews or you go out of business. Nowadays crowdfunding allows some independent voices to more easily survive professionaly.

The GG community focussing on the game industry would have just caused another rift. We already have rifts like the casual rift and the company defender rift. Game companies as such have already gotten away with loads, they won't start backtracking, they just find another model to earn money. In the end, the community is rarely united enough to make an actual difference. Battlefront 2 was perhaps one, but it still has its defenders.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
People were making mountains out of mole hills. Who cares if it was actually true that a dev slept with reporters for good reviews, everybody already knew the reviews were manufactured to the desire of the client anyway, regardless of any potential sexual favors. It was an absolutely ridiculous 'controversy' that even slowpoke had already moves on from. It was hilarious to see the community attempting to 'convince' game journalists to turn on the people paying their bills though, makes you wonder how many of them didn't even bother turning off add blocker going on the sites.

Yeah, and her 'favorable review' was almost a sad nod out of obligation. The problem was attacking their customers- and by all standards, the customers had a right to be mad right back.

But yeah, it was a mole hill. It could have sparked a fire that did something decent, but it scattered and went nowhere.

No, they weren't attacking their costumers, that's the whole point. Their costumer is the game industry. The community was threatening their method of financing themselves. Was their cornered rat response really that strange when this was about their jobs? We as readers mean very little to them beyond a few clicks to show the industry they are worth subsidizing. They wouldn't survive clearing up their conflict of interest. Its like the zookeepers siding with the animals, they don't have anything to gain.

The hobby of wargaming has this a lot less, most press is handled by the companies themselves. Its harder to insert yourself between the industry and the consumers.

I’m more convinced your a misogynist myself.

I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m more convinced your a misogynist myself.

I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?

I don't know if the exception is moral for everyone. But in part I understand why people get so vitriolic when people pretend the apocalypse personified has come into town to take away your hobby.

I certainly don't agree with the bitriol though, just saying that I get how we got here. Personally I find it laughable to go this crazy about a woman who you might not share your opinion with, people are pretending she came into their house and shot their dog or something

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m more convinced your a misogynist myself.

I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?

Hold on, lemme stop you. If you're directing this at me.

Earlier in this thread you talked about being raped. Don't get me wrong, I'm a victim of two incidents that I'm not going into here, just because I don't want to and I won't be 'Misery-Measuring'. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you got justice or something was done, if not- well I hope it doesn't happen to you again.

But your depiction of 'feminism' and 'misogyny' are coming from a place where, you- as a man, were raped. Not only were you raped, but you were at risk for contracting a disease or bringing a child into the world that you and her were not able to care for, and on top of this you were terrified of being falsely accused of the very crime you were a victim of. And the people who helped you 'realize' your position on feminism and misogyny- this 'BoLS Lesbian Mafia'- instead focused on the fact that there was a problem with men because perhaps you were raised by a man that taught you that emotions and seeking help were wrong (which is not common unless you were abused). Not that you were raped, not that false claims could harm you, not that you could have been literally killed by a disease- but that there's a problem with men. To put it bluntly, that was the absolute worst story you could have told to make me support feminism, because if that's 'real feminism' then it's horrible. I'm sure there's a brand of it out there that wants equality for men and women and fairness, but whatever it is you're following seems more like a matriarchal/gyno-centric cult that shifted blame away from a literal rapist and onto 'men'.

You'll have to pardon me if I don't really care about your definition of misogynist, nor do I particularly think you have any right to call anyone names.

For what it’s worth, Sarkeesian has been known to frequent hobby stores before.

Well, that’s the core of it.

Whether one agrees with her or not - totally fair enough.

But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.

She might be a scamming scumbag. I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care. Not when there’s far larger villains out there to be opposed - those with the actual power to change our world, whether or not we simply go ‘well, I don’t agree, shrug’

His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.

Thats a very nice neckbeard. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slightly different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, that’s the core of it.

Whether one agrees with her or not - totally fair enough.

But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.

She might be a scamming scumbag. I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care. Not when there’s far larger villains out there to be opposed - those with the actual power to change our world, whether or not we simply go ‘well, I don’t agree, shrug’

His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.

Why are you refering to him as if he's not in this thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slighlty different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.

There is no single definition of feminism.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.

I made my position quite clear. But I'm fairly sure you are just being selective about it. But I'll recap, just for you:

1- She has made her points based on cherry-picked data.
2- She has done, by everything short of legal standards, swindled people who contributed to her.
3- There are far more qualified persons- even feminists.
4- She has conducted herself poorly on previous panels, outright abusing audience members and participants.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.

Please. I have an 8-ball in a crusty tube sock and it seems to work just fine. Must be the quality of the opposition.

Because theres a ton of different feminist theories, sub-groups, etc...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slightly different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.

Fair statement. But 'everyone has a different version'.

What many call 'feminism' may be egalitarianism in my book- treat people fairly, equal rights and opportunities.

But some 'brands' of feminism seem to be just self-righteous hate groups.

Maybe it's like being 'conservative'. Not every conservative wants a theocracy, or is even religious.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, that’s the core of it.

Whether one agrees with her or not - totally fair enough.

But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.

She might be a scamming scumbag. I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care. Not when there’s far larger villains out there to be opposed - those with the actual power to change our world, whether or not we simply go ‘well, I don’t agree, shrug’

His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.

Why are you refering to him as if he's not in this thread?

Because I assume he was responding to me?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slighlty different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.

There is no single definition of feminism.

And yet we still have people pretending that the few who hate men are representative.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m more convinced your a misogynist myself.

I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?

Hold on, lemme stop you. If you're directing this at me.

Earlier in this thread you talked about being raped. Don't get me wrong, I'm a victim of two incidents that I'm not going into here, just because I don't want to and I won't be 'Misery-Measuring'. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you got justice or something was done, if not- well I hope it doesn't happen to you again.

But your depiction of 'feminism' and 'misogyny' are coming from a place where, you- as a man, were raped. Not only were you raped, but you were at risk for contracting a disease or bringing a child into the world that you and her were not able to care for, and on top of this you were terrified of being falsely accused of the very crime you were a victim of. And the people who helped you 'realize' your position on feminism and misogyny- this 'BoLS Lesbian Mafia'- instead focused on the fact that there was a problem with men because perhaps you were raised by a man that taught you that emotions and seeking help were wrong (which is not common unless you were abused). Not that you were raped, not that false claims could harm you, not that you could have been literally killed by a disease- but that there's a problem with men. To put it bluntly, that was the absolute worst story you could have told to make me support feminism, because if that's 'real feminism' then it's horrible. I'm sure there's a brand of it out there that wants equality for men and women and fairness, but whatever it is you're following seems more like a matriarchal/gyno-centric cult that shifted blame away from a literal rapist and onto 'men'.

You'll have to pardon me if I don't really care about your definition of misogynist, nor do I particularly think you have any right to call anyone names.

To be fair, my feminism somewhat pre-dates the rape (or legally, sexual assault).

But you seem to be bent out of shape over the actions of someone, actions that had absolutely no impact on you whatsoever.

Did you contribute to her Kickstarter? Evidentially not.

Did those that contributed have a rageboner against her? Seemingly not.

You’re taking exception to a person for an entirely imagined slight that those actually affected don’t seem to care about.

And given your similar rageboner against Kathleen Kennedy (who has helped Disney already nearly break even outlay for the Lucasfilm purchase), and just won’t shut up about either of them?

Yeah. I’m calling you out as a misogynist.

It’s ok. You may lack the introspection to stop, take a breath, and examine your own behaviour. That’s a big step in life, to identify one’s self as the main problem. For me, it happened when I was 29, following feedback (actual, constructive feedback) from a job interview i blobbed.

But you have a really weird, near fetish, for ripping intno Wimmins you happen to disagree with, and going no further.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with a woman,if it’s factual, and there’s a genuine personal impact of their actions upon yourself. Buttholes come in all varieties.

Except that’s just not what I, not seemingly many others, are getting from your posts.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slightly different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.

Fair statement. But 'everyone has a different version'.

What many call 'feminism' may be egalitarianism in my book- treat people fairly, equal rights and opportunities.

But some 'brands' of feminism seem to be just self-righteous hate groups.

Maybe it's like being 'conservative'. Not every conservative wants a theocracy, or is even religious.

Every group attracts its militant members and con artists. If you started a group about loving yoghurt you would likely end up with a group of cornflake haters in a week.

While you may call feminism egalitarianism, we can only move on that once we're actually equal. The point is, if we don't recognize that certain social groups have faced historical problems and opposition to attaining parity, not helping them out a little more will always leave them one step behind.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yeah. I’m calling you out as a misogynist.

Then prove it. Because as it stands, you've got as much to support that statement as I do to label you a child molester.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every group attracts its militant members and con artists. If you started a group about loving yoghurt you would likely end up with a group of cornflake haters in a week.

Say it with me: Everyone has an idiot cousin.

Well this thread was ok while it lasted.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well this thread was ok while it lasted.

They generally do until certain persons start calling names.

I might have to start utilizing an 'ignore' feature. It was good talking with you, D.O.F. - you at least made valid points worth considering. Moral- 'Idiot Cousins'.