Game journalism backlash - the microcosm theory

[Pod]

(we’ve had multiple mentions of Harrison Bergeron, which, as an aside… GamerGaters’ top dog is a lawyer who couldn’t win a Skype debate against an unemployed punter. Maybe let’s not all pretend we’re the guy who excels at stuff and is brought down, huh?)

Who/what is this a reference to? I’m hoping Internet Aristocrat had some skype debate that even his smooth, sleazy radio voice couldn’t save him from?

[playingwithknives]

Some point out that the perfect society the SJs strive for is that of Harrison Bergeon, a society where everyone is equal.

[Telefrog]

I think Pod is asking who the “top dog lawyer” is in that post.

[Pod]

I think Pod is asking who the “top dog lawyer” is in that post.

Yes, this. I don’t follow any of the GG stuff other than what I skim read in QT3 threads. This sounded slightly interesting, but perhaps because I was imagining a well dressed fellow getting logically defeated by a man in a torn string vest and cartoon tramp hat.

[Uncle_Larry]

Yes, this. I don’t follow any of the GG stuff other than what I skim read in QT3 threads. This sounded slightly interesting, but perhaps because I was imagining a well dressed fellow getting logically defeated by a man in a torn string vest and cartoon tramp hat.

Probably this guy.

[Soapyfrog]

Please, try to understand that I’m not trying to say that none of it matters, but rather at this is how the government deals with it currently. That there IS a prioritization of different groups, which is why you may need to go further than simply “everyone’s disadvantaged”.

You are talking about affirmative action presumably? In what other sense is their prioritization? Welfare? Social Security?

Well, the stuff I’m talking about is potentially different than affirmative action. I mean, it’s not things like hiring quotas. But rather, it’s a conscious decision to give certain contracts to corporations run by certain types of individuals.

I am just assuming you are trying to construct some sort of bizarre strawman, because these ideas are not good at all.

So, in that case, the government has some kind of methodology (I have absolutely no idea what it is) that places different types of disadvantaged groups on a scale, and tries to offset the disadvantage by providing additional benefits through increased opportunity.

I can’t think of a worse idea.

[Telefrog]

I can’t think of a worse idea.

We attack the mayor with hummus.

[Virgil_Hilts]

Yes, this. I don’t follow any of the GG stuff other than what I skim read in QT3 threads. This sounded slightly interesting, but perhaps because I was imagining a well dressed fellow getting logically defeated by a man in a torn string vest and cartoon tramp hat.

Naw, Chris Kluwe(former Minnesota Vikings punter and like M-list eceleb because he likes video games) just totally dominated Mike Cernovich, who GG calls “Based Lawyer” but AFAIK he actually doesn’t practice much law, he’s some sort of like scammy supplement salesman/weird misogynist advice columnist who latched onto #GG because he saw kindred spirits and also potential marks. It’s a Skype debate of two random dudes yelling at each other about internet drama, man, it’s certainly not appointment viewing.

Oh, and obviously Cernovich is not really Gamergate because if he was Gamergate shit like this:

Would imply that #Gamergate has any sort of association with doxxing or a bitter internet crusade by misogynists against “SJWs”. Which, as we know, is just trolling, because GamerGate is mostly about opposing imaginary sweeping reparations bills or whatever the hell Timex is talking about.

[Virgil_Hilts]

Note that we see this weird, I’m not even sure what to call it, rhetorical projection where #GGs complain about “bullies” and “mobs” or whatever while their entire history is just an endless history of mobs of people trying to bully people they disagree with.

[Timex]

Virgil, do you realize i was merely describing current law, and not even claiming it was bad?

You seem to be under some mistaken impression that i am some super gamer gate advocate who hates any kind of progressive movement, but as i explained, that’s just kind of a fiction in your mind.

[Virgil_Hilts]

I do not think you’re describing current law accurately, but someone already asked you to specify so I’ll let that debate continue.

[Timex]

You are talking about affirmative action presumably? In what other sense is their prioritization? Welfare? Social Security?

I am just assuming you are trying to construct some sort of bizarre strawman, because these ideas are not good at all.

I can’t think of a worse idea.

The one thing that i am most familiar with it affecting is contact opportunities with the government. There are contracts which only certain groups can bid on, and i believe that the government has quotas regarding how many contacts must go to certain groups.

[Soapyfrog]

The one thing that i am most familiar with it affecting is contact opportunities with the government. There are contracts which only certain groups can bid on, and i believe that the government has quotas regarding how many contacts must go to certain groups.

Certain groups that meet government standards for affirmative action or is there some other sinister criteria?

[magnet]

I believe Timex is referring to this program.

[Virgil_Hilts]

Nixon was, in many ways, the Anita Sarkeesian of the 70s

[Timex]

Certain groups that meet government standards for affirmative action or is there some other sinister criteria?

I’m not sure how it relates to other affirmative action laws. I believe in some cases, it is dependent upon having a certain percentage of employees being part of a disadvantaged group, in other cases the person who owns the business matters.

For instance, our business is owned by a woman, which conveys certain benefits. At one point in the past we worked with a company that was native american owned, and they had preferential treatment regarding certain contact opportunities.

[Malathor]

I’m not sure how it relates to other affirmative action laws. I believe in some cases, it is dependent upon having a certain percentage of employees being part of a disadvantaged group, in other cases the person who owns the business matters.

For instance, our business is owned by a woman, which conveys certain benefits. At one point in the past we worked with a company that was native american owned, and they had preferential treatment regarding certain contact opportunities.

Example:

http://www.dot.gov/osdbu/disadvantaged-business-enterprise

Or just google “disadvantaged business enterprise”. “Disadvantaged” in government contracting speak means either 51%+ minority or %51+ woman+minority owned depending on the agency or state.

[Soapyfrog]

I’m not sure how it relates to other affirmative action laws. I believe in some cases, it is dependent upon having a certain percentage of employees being part of a disadvantaged group, in other cases the person who owns the business matters.

Can you point me to these regulations? I thought affirmative action was based on having quota of potential candidates rather than actual employees. In Canada we have Employment Equity (also applies only to government jobs) but I always though it was stricter, you make it sound like the American system is stricter.

For instance, our business is owned by a woman, which conveys certain benefits. At one point in the past we worked with a company that was native american owned, and they had preferential treatment regarding certain contact opportunities.

It would be interesting to read the regulations that establish a contracting quota for female or native american owned businesses, if you can find them.

[Timex]

You can read about some of the sba regulations dealing with minority owned businesses on the sba site, here.

Small Business Administration

Note on the left of the page, you can see information about other groups as well, such as women, veterans, etc.

[Soapyfrog]

Or just google “disadvantaged business enterprise”. “Disadvantaged” in government contracting speak means either 51%+ minority or %51+ woman+minority owned depending on the agency or state.

Not just that but must also be a small business run by a non-wealthy person (net worth > 1.32 million). These programs are to give disadvantaged businesses a place in the selection process, not guaranteed contracts.