Brannock posted:

Well, okay, that's an acceptable assertion. Do you support families? Should families be exposed to Gamergate?

The Larch posted:

I'm not sure admitting you hang out with literal neo-nazis is going to help your argument.

Zeitgueist posted:

Exposing children to most gamers is acceptable grounds for removal via CPS, I'd say

circ dick soleil posted:

Why does the aggressive cleavage need to be saved? Who is threatening it?

Brannock posted:

Feminists who identify themselves with equity feminism include Jean Bethke Elshtain, Christina Hoff Sommers, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Noretta Koertge, Donna Laframboise, Mary Lefkowitz, Carrie Lukas, Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, Daphne Patai, Virginia Postrel, Alice Rossi, Nadine Strossen, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Cathy Young, and evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker.

That cohort includes a former president of the ACLU, an investigative journalist, and several professors at respected institutions.

Slanderer posted:

This appears to be an unsourced and unverified statement on that wikipedia page (except for Pinker). Looking up a few of the names here gives me some libertarians and some people in unrelated fields---but most importantly, i can find no reference to "equity feminist" related to them.

EDIT: Ah, it appears to be a clever edit on wikipedia. The list was originally people that Steven Pinker identifies with equity feminism, not feminists that identify themselves with it. So, I guess apparently no one but Sommers, Pinker, and MRAs actually refer to equity feminism

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Someone else asked me this last time I posted here so i'll just answer it, I agree with the definition, but i generally myself disagreeing with about half the feminist things I come across in media. I generally hate activist and radicals, though.

NutritiousSnack posted:

Case in point, TotalBisuit had a slam article mentioned against him and a lecture that had to be redacted and apologized for because he could prove damages. SeripothISCool88 isn't going to get the same treatment because them saying GamerGate as a whole eats infants doesn't matter.

Slanderer posted:

So, yeah, standing by my assertions that Sommers invented a new definition of feminism to apply to her dumb libertarian politics, which is not actually used by other feminists

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Someone else asked me this last time I posted here so i'll just answer it, I agree with the definition, but i generally myself disagreeing with about half the feminist things I come across in media. I generally hate activist and radicals, though.

Unfunny Poster posted:

Are you referring to this blog opinion on Totalbiscuit?

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidGallant/20150125/234930/For_the_Sake_of_the_Industry_No_More_TotalBiscuit.php

afeelgoodpoop posted:

No, the gamergate irc. its at rizon and its #burgersandfries. Its been very slow for the past few weeks, but if yall really want to argue with some real genuine channer GGers you can go there, as yall seem to have alot of fun with this thread.

Again, I'm not a casual 4chan user. I've barely ever been there before gamergate happened. I basically get all my info from the chat, I'm pretty sure it's where they archive everything.

Sharkie posted:

It's nice that you hate gg though you shouldn't hate activists, you've benefited enormously from their activism.

INH5 posted:

It's a reference to the PAX rules which prohibit "aggressive display of cleavage or the navel" on booth representatives, which is basically a very awkwardly worded rule against booth babes.

These rules have been there for years, but a few months ago somebody in GG got bored and decided to bring it up again.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

you hate activists and radicals, but you hang out in a GG channel and actively research anti-feminist causes?

i'm not sure if you understand that you come across as extremely biased and untrustworthy. i doubt you have sound judgement on this issue

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Okay, a clearer definition. I hate radicals that feel justified in hiding their intent and being devious, this doesn't bother me in my support of GG because it is ultimately a gamer cargo cult version that is disempowering those radicals out games journalism by attacking the journalist themselves.

NutritiousSnack posted:

No. He was mentoned off handily on an article on Kotaku or something and more importantly was mentioned during a game academics conference that had to issue a correction and apology on their youtube for mentioning him endorsing harassment.

Some lamewad saying someone else is lame and dumb is and always will be legal.

Brannock posted:

I see, thanks for the update. I didn't want to dig into that too deeply as I'm indifferent towards feminist factionalism.

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Okay, a clearer definition. I hate radicals that feel justified in hiding their intent and being devious, this doesn't bother me in my support of GG because it is ultimately a gamer cargo cult version that is disempowering those radicals out games journalism by attacking the journalist themselves.

Unfunny Poster posted:

Can you find said article? This is the only thing close to what you're talking about.

http://kotaku.com/some-youtubers-might-be-breaking-the-law-1606292412

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Okay, a clearer definition. I hate radicals that feel justified in hiding their intent and being devious, this doesn't bother me in my support of GG because it is ultimately a gamer cargo cult version that is disempowering those radicals out games journalism by attacking the journalist themselves.

Denim Dude posted:

conservative anti gay dude getting caught blowing a dude = funny.

moral scolds being outed as total hypocrites = funny.

what is there to debate or discuss? send this poo poo somewhere else. pet island maybe.

Doomsday Jesus posted:

I am just curious what percentage of the gamer gate "community" are pedophiles and which ones simply view artistic nudes of children online.

Brannock posted:

I don't know, I think there's a lot of nuance to be debated here, such as moral culpability or grey areas. Don't you agree?

Zeitgueist posted:

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Okay, a clearer definition. I hate radicals that feel justified in hiding their intent and being devious, this doesn't bother me in my support of GG because it is ultimately a gamer cargo cult version that is disempowering those radicals out games journalism by attacking the journalist themselves.

Cliff Racer posted:

Zeitgeist a few minutes ago your avatar looked like this:




but don't worry as I already brought you your old one back. There's no need to thank me.

Cliff Racer posted:

Zeitgeist a few minutes ago your avatar looked like this:




but don't worry as I already brought you your old one back. There's no need to thank me.

Zeitgueist posted:

Exposing children to most gamers is acceptable grounds for removal via CPS, I'd say

Denim Dude posted:

what is there to debate or discuss? send this poo poo somewhere else. pet island maybe.

Doomsday Jesus posted:

Please sir do not talk about exposing children, especially in the artistic sense because there's a large segment of perverts who believe that is ok.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

this is a sort of interesting rationalization that allows you to believe that GG are not radical activists, but it just leads to more questions. why do you think that feminists and SJWs are actually hiding anything? what is the threshold of proof that you find acceptable to test this belief? from my perspective it seems like they've clearly stated that they think there are problems with sexism and other -isms in gaming, and want to point out those problems. where is the ulterior motive? it also seems obvious to me that the gamergaters are the more devious party, given that they claim they're concerned about journalism ethics when they harass people who are not journalists, but social critics. this would indicate that the true goal of gamergate is to silence unpopular critics

Zeitgueist posted:

LOL couldn't make the gf stuff stick, trying again?

Disinterested posted:

If your answer is yes, have you considered the possibility that that view may colour your attitudes to the whole issue?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Atleast since LF was made leftist got really weird about spreading specific narratives about ongoing events. If you see nearly every single leftist outlet repeating not only specific narratives, but snappy catchphrases and an ultimate conclusive tone about things. It's very obvious some weird collusion is going on. either that or internet leftys really like repeating poo poo in mass in the same exact way everywhere. I guess It's important for me to bring up that I was somewhat radicalized in my youth over the incredibly ridiculous propaganda push to convince the US public to go to war with iraq. I had deep suspicions within the first month that the administration was pushing alot of bullshit. it became more and more obvious over time, all the way leading up to them revealing that spy that was in active duty because they or someone they knew kept calling the news to tell them their evidence was poo poo. When we actually pushed into doing it, the opinion polls came out showing most people believed the bullshit, and then bush getting elected in 2004. I legit wanted to blow up something bad. Thankfully I was a kid and didnt have any power but it made me lose complete faith in other peoples ability to smell bullshit, and made me feel like I have some extra special ability to pick up on obvious media manipulation. I have no faith in others ability to not be brainwashed and manipulated, so when I sense manipulative narratives being pushed I feel a strong disdain and fear that others will be legit manipulated into believing it.