[Wutang]

So it turns out that she did actually contact the authorities?

[infowarrior1]

(09-14-2014 10:42 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

So it turns out that she did actually contact the authorities?

No

[Wutang]

Anyways, something more amusing:

[iop890]

(09-14-2014 09:39 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I love Fallout: New Vegas.

I had no idea, Wastelander.

But yea, that was the best rpg in years, man. Beat the hell out of that atrocity Fallout 3.

(09-14-2014 10:37 PM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  

Knights of the Old Republic 2 eclipses the first Kotor in my opinion

Agreed

You guys should check out Alpha Protocol, best game no one's ever heard of. It's like Mass Effect with no gay sex, and you can't play a girl.

[Yatagan]

According to Steam, I've put in 258 hours into F:NV. I guess I liked the game as well.

[Dragonstone]

(09-13-2014 01:23 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

3. Control the Battlefield.

Go check out the Wikipedia page for Sarkeesian; there's no mention of criticism, because there have been no 'authoritative' critiques. Put simply, it doesn't matter how well Thunderf00t disproves her arguments, or how well any of us write about these topics online. The US Supreme Court might recognize us as journalists, but the MSM, Wikipedia, and Academia dismiss anything we write as hearsay. With a documentary that all changes; suddenly we have something that demands acknowledgement on IMDB, and Wikipedia, that also reaches a larger audience of non-gamers. By exposing Sarkeesian et al, we expose the methodologies of the people who do this in other realms. The public becomes a little bit more aware of these disingenuous manipulators, and it becomes that much harder for them to do what they do.

I'm not following GamerGate and I barely know where to begin on the story.

As you point out, Wikipedia, IMDB, the Media, all of them have a built-in excuse not to recognize the events that have transpired. Yes, they have a strong ideological bias, but it's easier to cover that with the simple fact that there are no "real" sources with strong brands to push the facts.

I believe that it was Roosh who said that 2013 would be the year of the manosphere, and while in many respects he was right, the state of play as of September 2014 is that there are few institutions, either online or offline, that can be referenced to support the facts on issues of this nature. Yes, there are dozens of blogs serving as secondary sources, but many of those blogs do not even provide a public point of contact. For comparision, even the free independent music weekly magazine passed out at local resturants has a contact person, and a street address.

It would be an extensive process to build such institutions and/or organizations. By comparison, the US quasi-libertarian movement spent decades building up think tanks, direct mail campaigns, educational institutions, advocacy organizations, fund-raising networks, and media outlets. While all of these instiutions and organizations may not agree, they provide a "safe place" for discussion, analysis, and to build credibility.

On top of that, we live in a technological era of instant gratification, where high grade visual stimuli is available from almost any computer terminal, and instant communication and attention is available from any smartphone. Any major organization can advocate for their position using media products with high quality graphics, professional audio, and the credibility of at least dozens of think tanks, celebrities, researchers, and public figures.

With the exception of a selection of sites, there is no "safe place" on this side for discussion, analysis, and to build credibility. Combine the level of the opposition with the very real risks of open and public support for the concepts discussed on this forum, and there is a recipe for a lack of enthusiasm.

[Lizard King]

(09-13-2014 01:23 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Incidentally, that short film that you guys helped me get the votes for? That'll be available online in the next week or so. It's not perfect, but it turned out pretty well for a budget of $10,000. I've shown it to some of my friends who've worked in Hollywood, and it's managed to impress them.

Is your film about Anita Sarkeesian?

If it is, you could make a great point by sharing information about costs and expenditure in the film or elsewhere and perhaps challenging her to do the same.

[Blaster]

Aurini Wrote:

Let me give you an example of the damage her sorts of narratives cause. In Dragon's Age: Origins there was a bisexual male character, with a background and character arc that included his sexuality. He was a well developed character.

In Dragon's Age: 2* EVERY character is bisexual without there being a story behind it. Having a distinct gay or bisexual character is too homophobic these days, and the last thing that Bioware wants to do is oppress all of those victims out there (all 12 of them)! Similarly, in Mass Effect 3* there's a character in a gay marriage, who isn't gay; they just jammed in this jarring nod to diversity for the sake of diversity.

I don't disagree with any of that. My point is specific to boycotts. A boycott is a coordinated economic attack on a specific target as a way to coerce target into changing a policy or behavior. A good boycott has a clear, specific objective. Once the objective is achieved, the boycott is lifted.

Refusing to buy a game because it's crammed full of idiotic feminist narratives is not a boycott, that's just being a wise consumer. Talking about those idiotic narratives in a forum, discouraging like-minded people from wasting their money on those games, is just exercising your right to free speech.

Frivolous boycotts help no one. Boycotting Mirror's Edge 2 based on a rumor that the publisher hired Anita in some unspecified consulting capacity is a bad reason to stage a boycott. The objective is not clear. They can't fire her if it was a one-time contract. So, what are you trying to change? The game itself? You already buy games based on whether their content is appealing to you, so this does not need a coordinated sacrifice. Do you actually have the capacity to organize a meaningful economic attack, or will your boycott be as a fart in the wind?

Plus, boycotting media for its content is inherently contrary to the spirit of free speech. Contrast:

We should boycott Gawker media sites until they write articles agreeing with our viewpoint

versus

We should boycott Gawker media sites until they demonstrate a commitment to journalistic integrity.

The first focuses on the content, the second is about the the general policies and behavior of Gawker itself.

[Blaster]

(09-13-2014 06:39 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Sarkeesian is a toxic, self-interested idiot with no interest in gaming, and is simply using it as a tool to grab power for herself. Her videos show an utter lack of awareness of story telling and character function.

Agreed.

Quote:

She herself is a classic female trope: the bitter moral crusader. Carrie Nation. If you're my age, and English, you would recognise her as Mary Whitehouse. If you're my age, and American, you would recognise her as Tipper Gore. You ever wonder why albums have warning labels on them?

Again no argument here.

Quote:

If gamers allow developers to take her seriously, and define what can and can't be an acceptable female character, you will end up with a bunch of Mary Sue characters with no realistic human flaws, because any negative character flaw might be misogynistic. Basically, the chick from Twilight, but even more insufferably morally-correct. Expect 'beautiful' female characters to be uglied up.

The mere fact of taking money to consult on a particular videogame is hardly evidence that developers said game take actually her seriously. There are hundreds of credits on a typical A-list game. What's one more? It seems far more likely to me any business arrangement between her and EA/DICE is going to be more about PR and marketing than development.

They pay her to come and deliver a lecture to the designers and developers, who use the time to catch up on their email backlog. In return, she'll mention the game in interviews and videos.

Quote:

And if gamers can't boycott one good game, in a world with 30+ years of gaming history to otherwise distract themselves with, they deserve the patronising moral lectures games will eventually dissolve into.

My point is that if you're going to boycott, you should have a better goal than "punish EA for paying Anita Sarkeesian to consult on one niche game." Clearly, the feminist propaganda has been influencing games since before AS was on the scene and refusing to buy a single game based on nothing more than a rumor of her involvement is not going to change anything.

[AnonymousBosch]

I wrote up my analysis of how the SJW / Cultural Marxism mindset permeates every aspect of a mainstream hit like 'The Last Of Us', but it's come out at 10+ pages, and I'm not about to dump a wall of text that size on this forum.

As for boycotts:

Would music in the 80's have been better if Tipper Gore had been allowed in each recording studio to tell the artists what can and can't be sung? How can you see handing Sarkeesian power as something that is going to have a positive effect on creativity enough that she shouldn't be blacklisted through economic pressures? Gamers need to say games don't need her input, and send her back to whatever hole she crawled out of, because she's said she doesn't care about games, and they're just a means to an end for power to her. Why give her that?

[Yatagan]

(09-15-2014 04:20 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

I wrote up my analysis of how the SJW / Cultural Marxism mindset permeates every aspect of a mainstream hit like 'The Last Of Us', but it's come out at 10+ pages, and I'm not about to dump a wall of text that size on this forum.

You could host it on a file sharing site.

[Tengen]

(09-15-2014 04:20 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

I wrote up my analysis of how the SJW / Cultural Marxism mindset permeates every aspect of a mainstream hit like 'The Last Of Us', but it's come out at 10+ pages, and I'm not about to dump a wall of text that size on this forum.

ROK Submission

[dholland662]

(09-14-2014 01:55 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

So now Bioware creates nothing but these awful degeneracy simulators like Dragon Age 2 where everything is gay and you lose reputation with characters for not buttfucking them. Or Mass Effect 3 where a character that had been straight for 2 games, even competing with you to bang the alien chick in the first game is now suddenly confessing his gay love for you.

This is completely true. The following of these classic RPG games has become retarded beyond measure, and game studios now cater to them because they are afraid of media storms (not so much weaker sales numbers, since most people, even "diehard followers", will pirate games anyway).

A game made by their community, Baldur's Gate Enhance Edition, has also been infected by this insanity. While in previous Baldur's Gates romancable characters have all been reasonable, in this game you have Neera, a feminist half-elf whose primary feature is being an unstable cunt, and Dorn, a bisexual half-orc who actually tries to convince your (male) character that he is only not bi/gay because he hasn't tasted cock yet and then threatens you when you refuse (you'll recognize this as one of the most common complaints that lesbians make - men believing that they are only lesbians due to not having tried cock yet and not accepting their identity - apparently this is disgusting only when it happens to a woman).

I only hope that Blizzard is resistant to bullshit. If I started seeing this crap in Diablo, Starcraft or World of Warcraft, it would be the final blow.

iirc Blizzard cut an interview short because they were tired of questions about their boobplates being misogynist.

Tried looking for this but APPARENTLY on the Escapist I saw that Espirza contacted someone and said Anita did file a report.
I don't bother challenging Escapist users directly, I just say what I want to say and leave it be. Anything on that?

Ordinary gamers still think, even ones who are very aware of the whole GamerGate debacle, that simply claiming victory for their side (which they could, they hold the power over the games journalists) means this will end. Even when I show them the Sarkeesian video where she declares a culture war they see it as desperation rather than what it really is: SJWs showing their true selves.

[dholland662]

delete.

[AnonymousBosch]

I've thought more about the idiocy of Sarkeesian working with EA, and the best way I can explain it is this:

I'm a musician. The songs I write for my band usually come from my personal experiences and observations, though I sometimes write in character.

Now, imagine I'm going to write a song, but the record company has decided that my thoughts and ideas need to be approved first.

When I ask why, they inform me that there is pressure from outside sources who claim that music is 'troubling' to them.

To address this, they say the next time I am to write a song, I am to be paired up with a 'Consultant' to avoid any issues.

Co-incidentally, this Consultant is the most vocal speaker currently in society who decided music was 'troubling' to begin with.

Attempting to make the best of this situation, we sit down to write a song, and I ask her what bands she likes.

She states. "I don't like music. Music is problematic." She shows me interview after interview where she has publicly-stated she isn't a fan of music, doesn't listen to music in her spare time, and think music fans are despicable human beings.

This gives me pause, so I try to change the subject. "Well, I want to write about this thing that happened to me."

She purses her lips. "No-one cares about the experiences or viewpoints of a White Heterosexual Male. You need to only write songs about the marginalised and powerless in society."

"If they can dictate what I can and can't write about, how are they in any way marginalised or powerless?"

She waves her finger at me. "Denying their victimised status is thoughtcrime."

"Can't they learn to write and record their own songs? Wouldn't that be far more empowering for them to learn an instrument and sing of their lives?"

"Check your privilege. Expecting them to learn to write a song or play an instrument is a patriarchal expectation designed to silence their voices."

I dodge: "Well we can write a positive song that is fun for the listener and makes them happy."

She frowns. "Here's why that's a problem..." and explains to me that music shouldn't ever be 'fun', and should only be used for political instruction with a heavy moral overtone. "People should only play games to learn how to be a good party member person. That is the only acceptable form of song."

"OK, we can write a political song. There's a long traditional of great songwriters putting their political views into song. Let's write about X."

She frowns again. "The fact that you want to write about X is... troubling. Taking that viewpoint means you are literally worse than Hitler. Your freedom to write a song from that viewpoint needs to be restricted and controlled by law."

"So, I can write political songs, but only if they share your viewpoint."

"Exactly."

"Isn't that hypocritical?"

"Hypocrisy isn't possible for outer party members people like me, only proles people like you. This is beyond your comprehension because you're not intelligent and educated, like I am."

I change the subject. "Ok, we'll write a rock song."

She frowns again. "A rock song is literally cultural appropriation. White people stole rock music from the African Americans who created it."

"I'm confused. Rock music is a blending of African-American blues music with the Hillbilly music of White Immigrant Settlers in the Appalachians. Without the two cultures cross-pollinating, culture would have stagnated. Together, they created something new."

"That doesn't matter. It's cultural appropriation."

"But traditional African Music is pentatonic - using a 5 note scale. If blues and rock and roll use the 12 note Western Harmonic Scale popularised by the European Richard Wagner in the 1800's - a white European - aren't the African-American's stealing the white man's music?"

"It doesn't work that way."

"But the dominant seventh chord vital to the V Chord creating the pull to the I chord in rock and roll is a core concept of Richard Wagner's popularisation of Chromaticism!"

"We can't complete this task with your racist thinking. You would understand if you were educated."

"Isn't every rich white girl currently-having success in the charts with ebonic rapping just a version of blackface?"

"Now you're being sexist. You're just trying to stop their voices being heard."

I change the subject again. "Look, we'll use this chord progression."

She shakes her head. "Here's why that is a problem: those chords are stereotypical."

"They're used because they're a create a sense of progression, music listeners like them, and they work."

"Using those chords is literally offensive. Music listeners only like them because they're despicable, uneducated people. You're a bad person for even suggesting them."

I throw my hands up, and hand her the guitar. "OK, you write the song."

She clucks her tongue at me. "I don't play an instrument. I don't know how to write a song. I don't even like music. It's... problematic."

"Then why are you here?"

"Because your record company is paying me for my expertise in this area."

[iamdegaussed]

So the SFPD changed their story?



How could they have missed such important information.

[aphelion]

(09-15-2014 05:51 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

I've thought more about the idiocy of Sarkeesian working with EA, and the best way I can explain it is this:

I'm a musician. The songs I write for my band usually come from my personal experiences and observations, though I sometimes write in character.

Now, imagine I'm going to write a song, but the record company has decided that my thoughts and ideas need to be approved first.

When I ask why, they inform me that there is pressure from outside sources who claim that music is 'troubling' to them.

To address this, they say the next time I am to write a song, I am to be paired up with a 'Consultant' to avoid any issues.

Co-incidentally, this Consultant is the most vocal speaker currently in society who decided music was 'troubling' to begin with.

Attempting to make the best of this situation, we sit down to write a song, and I ask her what bands she likes.

She states. "I don't like music. Music is problematic." She shows me interview after interview where she has publicly-stated she isn't a fan of music, doesn't listen to music in her spare time, and think music fans are despicable human beings.

This gives me pause, so I try to change the subject. "Well, I want to write about this thing that happened to me."

She purses her lips. "No-one cares about the experiences or viewpoints of a White Heterosexual Male. You need to only write songs about the marginalised and powerless in society."

"If they can dictate what I can and can't write about, how are they in any way marginalised or powerless?"

She waves her finger at me. "Denying their victimised status is thoughtcrime."

"Can't they learn to write and record their own songs? Wouldn't that be far more empowering for them to learn an instrument and sing of their lives?"

"Check your privilege. Expecting them to learn to write a song or play an instrument is a patriarchal expectation designed to silence their voices."

I dodge: "Well we can write a positive song that is fun for the listener and makes them happy."

She frowns. "Here's why that's a problem..." and explains to me that music shouldn't ever be 'fun', and should only be used for political instruction with a heavy moral overtone. "People should only play games to learn how to be a good party member person. That is the only acceptable form of song."

"OK, we can write a political song. There's a long traditional of great songwriters putting their political views into song. Let's write about X."

She frowns again. "The fact that you want to write about X is... troubling. Taking that viewpoint means you are literally worse than Hitler. Your freedom to write a song from that viewpoint needs to be restricted and controlled by law."

"So, I can write political songs, but only if they share your viewpoint."

"Exactly."

"Isn't that hypocritical?"

"Hypocrisy isn't possible for outer party members people like me, only proles people like you. This is beyond your comprehension because you're not intelligent and educated, like I am."

I change the subject. "Ok, we'll write a rock song."

She frowns again. "A rock song is literally cultural appropriation. White people stole rock music from the African Americans who created it."

"I'm confused. Rock music is a blending of African-American blues music with the Hillbilly music of White Immigrant Settlers in the Appalachians. Without the two cultures cross-pollinating, culture would have stagnated. Together, they created something new."

"That doesn't matter. It's cultural appropriation."

"But traditional African Music is pentatonic - using a 5 note scale. If blues and rock and roll use the 12 note Western Harmonic Scale popularised by the European Richard Wagner in the 1800's - a white European - aren't the African-American's stealing the white man's music?"

"It doesn't work that way."

"But the dominant seventh chord vital to the V Chord creating the pull to the I chord in rock and roll is a core concept of Richard Wagner's popularisation of Chromaticism!"

"We can't complete this task with your racist thinking. You would understand if you were educated."

"Isn't every rich white girl currently-having success in the charts with ebonic rapping just a version of blackface?"

"Now you're being sexist. You're just trying to stop their voices being heard."

I change the subject again. "Look, we'll use this chord progression."

She shakes her head. "Here's why that is a problem: those chords are stereotypical."

"They're used because they're a create a sense of progression, music listeners like them, and they work."

"Using those chords is literally offensive. Music listeners only like them because they're despicable, uneducated people. You're a bad person for even suggesting them."

I throw my hands up, and hand her the guitar. "OK, you write the song."

She clucks her tongue at me. "I don't play an instrument. I don't know how to write a song. I don't even like music. It's... problematic."

"Then why are you here?"

"Because your record company is paying me for my expertise in this area."

Bosch just drops hammers everywhere he goes. It's second nature.

[aphelion]

(09-15-2014 06:37 PM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  

So the SFPD changed their story?



How could they have missed such important information.

When was it forwarded to the FBI? If it was forwarded after Aurini made his call, then it's an intentional waste of resources designed to throw hunters off the track.

[iamdegaussed]

At the time Aurini made his call, the guy said there wasn't even a case number.

Why couldn't he find a case number when Aurini and Milo were asking? It just seems nuts to me.

[Aurini]

(09-15-2014 07:29 PM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  

At the time Aurini made his call, the guy said there wasn't even a case number.

Why couldn't he find a case number when Aurini and Milo were asking? It just seems nuts to me.

If they were forwarding a death-threat case to the FBI, wouldn't there still be a case number? Wouldn't the beat-cops still need to be informed of a potential attack at 123 Fake St? The officer said they'd work in concert with other law enforcement, but the complaint ought to start with them.

If it's the Child Porn case (she was tweeted child porn about a week afterwards), then their lack of activity makes sense - that's an Internet crime, not a San Francisco crime.

More importantly: why were the GamerGate people (I think I was the third to ask, the first to record it, however) the first people asking about this? Sarkeesian made claims of substantial unprofessionalism amongst the police, which the MSM reported - why did they not contact the SFPD for their side of the story?

Or was it the FBI who told her to get a new job?

Something's rotten. I don't know what, but it's related to GamerGate's No1 priority - accountability in journalism. And if one more person asks me about the legality of recording a call with a public spokesperson who wants to be quoted accurately, I'm going to punch them in the throat.

[iamdegaussed]

You're right. Like I said it's a total head scratcher why Esparza would tell you one thing, and then tell random-SJW guy the other.

I thought today was the day Milo was following up with the FBI.

[Blaster]

(09-15-2014 08:29 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

More importantly: why were the GamerGate people (I think I was the third to ask, the first to record it, however) the first people asking about this? Sarkeesian made claims of substantial unprofessionalism amongst the police, which the MSM reported - why did they not contact the SFPD for their side of the story?

Exactly. Anita's culpability is and really always has been a side issue. The real galling aspect to all this is the dishonest, irresponsible, unprofessional behavior of so many journalists.

[Blaster]

(09-15-2014 04:20 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

As for boycotts:

Would music in the 80's have been better if Tipper Gore had been allowed in each recording studio to tell the artists what can and can't be sung?

That seems backwards to me. Tipper Gore and her allies were the ones calling for the boycotts. They were applying pressure to record labels to drop albums and songs because they objected to the messages.

What you're suggesting seems more like boycotting Who Framed Roger Rabbit because you heard a rumor that Tipper Gore had lunch with Robert Zemeckis.

Quote:

How can you see handing Sarkeesian power as something that is going to have a positive effect on creativity enough that she shouldn't be blacklisted through economic pressures?

I don't see it has "handing Sarkeesian power." I see it as her being given an opportunity to have a developer's ear for a short time. I think it's unfair. I don't think she's the right person for it. But I think trying to wage economic warfare against developers who simply solicit her opinion is a gigantic waste of time. It seems to mere there are far more important battles to fight and far better methods to use.

Quote:

Gamers need to say games don't need her input, and send her back to whatever hole she crawled out of, because she's said she doesn't care about games, and they're just a means to an end for power to her. Why give her that?

Basically: because anyone can throw random shit at the wall and get at least a few things to stick. No matter how dishonest she is, she still manages to make halfway reasonable points every now and again. If you decide to attack a developer merely for seeking her advice, you're going to seem completely irrational to virtually everyone who isn't already firmly in your camp.

The truth is that she already has power. She has all kinds of press on her side. She was given a venue on TED. She has gotten enormous exposure and her videos get hundreds of thousands of views (some have cleared a million). It's too late for gamers to just say "games don't need your input." And blacklisting is not a power that gamers will be able to wield effectively for reasons I've already outlined.

So what is to be done?

Make fun of her. Laugh at her. Make her fans laugh at her. She is ridiculous, after all. Super Mario Brothers sexist? It's game about breaking bricks with your head and jumping over pits. Sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

But while you are at it, feel free to boycott the shameless, lying, corrupt band of so-called journalists who seem to be waging psychological warfare against gamers and men in general to line their own pockets. Attack THEM all you want.

[iamdegaussed]

Until we get more information or get a perpetrator this sucks for us and for the gamer gate people. We celebrated prematurely and got caught out for it.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The fact that someone notified the department yesterday and it got forwarded to the FBI just proves that the department hasn't been notified before (as in two weeks before, when Anita first claimed to have received those threats). Look at what that mail is saying: "This in fact was the case as of yesterday".

In other words, the first time anyone filed a complaint related to this matter was today.

She is proving the fact that she has been lying all this time and trying to spin it as some sort of proof in her favor.