1681

“NOBODY REVIEW ANYTHING NEGATIVELY, EVER.”

1682

Hawkeye project style? It didn’t prevent the Spiderwoman Butt scandal, but it did make its point so we notice and laugh about that shit now.

Speaking of laughing… GamerGate is at its best a complete lol-fest. I mean, when nobody’s doing bad things, ok?

Some of today’s LOLs:

Rowdy Roddy Piper weighs in on GG:

Brianna Wu snaps off a guy’s head for “mansplaining”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B13Dj6DCcAA4h04.jpg

Sorry I don’t have any stuff that’s making fun of pro-GG folks handy, but I do encourage it if you’ve got some.

1683

Long before social media everyone was called things like osmk9372 the worst that generally happened in a flame war was someone mashed the keyboard in anger and logged off or unsubscribed to the newsgroup or the like. Now there are many that have stopped being anonymous the barrier between the net and real life is permeable. Perhaps the long term solution is actually going back to being a genderless nickname. Short of re-engineering the net and criminalising anonymity I can’t see what can be done about “trolls” (the new definition) who are ubitquitous everywhere from gamergate to the first person to tell The Queen to fuck off on twitter (about 5 mins)

We’re in the age of the social media narcissist*, many people insist of putting every aspect of the lives online, from their personal details to their exact latitude and longitude.

*Selfies are a modern day version of Narcissus and his pond.

1684

Don’t forget the porn star whose figured out an untapped captive audience and has come out as pro-GG, an astute piece of marketing imho.

1685

I watched the They Live one and was like, WTF? A-GG is the party that brooks no differing opinions in this mess? Um, ok.

1686

Serious knight is serious.

1687

Sure it was amusing, but WTF? It was like that scene in MP The Holy Grail ‘help, help, I’m being opressed’.

1688

I wouldn’t call people who are doxxing, swatting, anything else end in ing, calling people with death threats trolls. That’s a different breed entirely, and they belong in jail, at the very least, heavily fined.

1689

No, no you just ignore them and they go away. It’s worked so well that these sorts of things don’t even really exist on the internet anymore.

Oh wait, that’s the exact opposite of how reality works.

1690

If r/KiA is an accurate glimpse into the mind of #GG, they are fine with any sort of criticism, as long as it discloses its presuppositions in a certain way. When Polygon was contrasted to a Christian review site, they found the latter quite agreeable despite the clear moral positions. The only difference I can discern is that CCG carries its philosophy on its sleeve and in its site name, whereas anti-#GG rejects every label and every outward identification with a specific school of thought.

1691

/r/againstgamergate has a number of open debates, and fairly civil conversations between both sides (in most cases)

However, go on /r/gamerghazi and its a different story, there’s so much rabid froth coming from those guys Pascha is going to use it for the next Ibiza foam party.

1692

I wonder if we’re in an age where the editorial staff of a website, like a magazine, was fully responsible for the content the writers put into it. Or, is it the wild west and they just make sure you follow the style guide and let anything past?

I say that because if a writer is consistently messaging some personal world view, does the magazine agree and also hold that view? Because it used to be that whatever appeared represented the publication not just the individual writer. Maybe that has changed.

1693

Er…not really Aszurom. There’s always been “opinion columns” which are specifically stated to represent the author’s view, and not the publication’s.

1694

Blizzard: “Let’s take a stand to reject hate and harassment”:

Are Blizzard still owned by Activision? Didn’t Activision pull it’s advertising money from a few sites due to pressure from GamerGate?

1695

Basically, Blizzard and Activision Games (and Sierra) are separate companies under the Activision Blizzard banner.

1696

The tortured reasoning on /r/KiA makes it all the more clear that #GG is simply a feminist backlash, nothing more and nothing less.

“Disclosure” refers to stating material facts that are not immediately obvious from the presentation. For instance, when YouTubers give glowing reviews to a game without mentioning that they received money from the publisher. In contrast, Polygon’s controversial review of Bayonetta 2 makes it abundantly clear what the reviewer presupposed. A good part of the review discusses his opinion of women’s depiction in games. There is nothing left to disclose.

Maybe /r/KiA doesn’t want to be surprised with feminist thought halfway through an article. But the solution is not “disclosure”. Ironically enough, the solution is a “trigger warning”.

1697

Are you people honestly telling me that an American adult writing a post like this seems plausible? A bunch of whiners said they were putting me on ignore for harping on this shit, but come the fuck on.

This dude has, I think, reverse engineered the “point” he’s trying to asp out here from trying to justify GamerGate, which is SOP for him as every post he makes is a pathetic and dishonest attempt to reverse engineer justifications for GamerGate, but now it appears that #GG is his FIRST EXPOSURE TO THE WRITTEN WORD.

1698

To take his posts serious, he literally did not understand what a “byline” was, and somehow maintained that lack of understanding as he posted on a forum frequented by professional writers for a decade…

But when suddenly a bunch of entitled virgin losers got sad that some dude didn’t like a video game they liked, he’s pondering this shit like it’s a BREAKING NEWS development in journalistic ethics?

1699

Are you wearing your Hulk pants?

1700

Is the steam coming out of his ears whistling? I heard a loud, shrill noise so popped back into the thread.