It goes without saying that the same people start "caring" pretty immediately when they see opinions of any perceived other side. It's what we call bigotry. As long as you identify 'pro-GG', you can post any vile shit you like and people 'won't care'. That's what makes the thread such an effective open barn door for extremist asshole entry.

But you also didn't do it and you were aGG so isn't the blame stronger on you?

Also; try to keep on topic :D

I don't know what this 'aGG' is you speak of. I'm tired of fictional enemy concepts and see no need to respond to them.

In any case, I have no obligation to clean up the fucking homophobic, racist, conspiracist mess in your thread.

But, hey, maybe I'll respond to just one of that dozen of extremist links, maybe I'll write an email to Breitbart telling them that they know fucking bullshit about German politics, that they should once more be ashamed of themselves, and that I pray every night that our fugitive expenditures don't just stop at that estimated oh so scary half a billion and would rather approach even a fraction of the financial help for Greece. Maybe I tell Breitbart that they don't know shit about anything, so they should finally shut the fuck up about everything.

That would defo help more than anything posted in the gamergate news thread.

Please don't take it as a slight at all, although I did intend the double entendre regarding "higher" minded as my understanding is the beer flows freely there...
This isn't a Gamergate topic, how about you take it the the forum it belongs.

My thread?
Either way, if you cared about improving your principles which I assume are to help minorities or whatever or cared so much about the rampant homophobia you perceived, you would actually try to debunk them. So you were either content with ''arguing'' with whichever place you went to bounce your opinion off other similarly thinking people or just stopped caring about the whole debacle entirely.
Anyway, would you care to explain why you NEVER have got into a debate more than stating your opinion, calling the response racist or extremist or homophobic or whatever synonym for immoral and then going peace out and claiming you were trying honestly debate and the wrongthink was too strong for you to do so? What do you think a debate is? Caging someone from the other side so they can't ''do harm'' and poking them in an environment only you can control? If you find the mere expression of opinion turning off to you, what makes you think you ever wanted to have an honest debate in the first place?

Ah yes, I remember... but it wasn't porn. It was your brain associating a few common Lego pieces as certain indecent body parts.
I am sorry to tell you, tinyE, but it's all in your head. We all are. Nothing is real.

I miss reading Vestin's post.



But we all know the real culprit behind chasing away all the cool people from the forums was that dastardly gamergate dude.

oh i know you were just teasing, i laughed. My response was a joke too. though i do hope someone looked for when we discussed that ;) lol

...however I am confused about the gamergate thing? or was that meant for the other guys?
edit: ah yes, i read a little further back and forward. meant for the other gusy :)

Saying that all the cool people left would be in direct contradiction to me being here. Hence inconceivable.

Unless by cool, you mean't not very cool, fricken quitters who leave, then yes. :P

TET's exit was never really explained to my knowledge. Personally, I sensed some tension in some of his posts around the time of the regional pricing announcement. I got the feeling (and this is only my own speculation) that he was being put in a position to say things in support of the company's actions that he truly didn't believe himself. His visibility in the forums was much more limited after that and then he left. It would not surprise me at all to learn he chose to leave because of frustrations with the direction of the company.

I don't think TET was ever really an "official" community liaison. IIRC, he was the Marketing Manager. His role in the forums was just something that he did. I imagine whatever replacement GOG hired has decided to focus solely their primary duties. GOG did hire Ciris to work with the community, but I think they've directed her focus to be more on the social media areas (Facebook and Twitter) and less on the forums. Besides, she is in more of a messenger position rather than one of decision making like TET. All that she can do is collect questions and request answers, whereas TET was a direct connection to the heart of GOG.

EDIT Post facto - I see I'm not the only one dialoguing with you now, and it seems to me that both of you are being less careful with the generalizations than me. I'm letting the below stand unmodified and hope you will not further decide to take the STFU approach.


Hmmm... yes? What of it (classifying types)? I said myself earlier what SJW usually shortens to for me, something quite long winded involving political correctness, postmodernism, social activism, radicalism, etc... granted that might not be the most common usage but I think it's close enough. It's not like social groups are easy to delineate in strict ways... even groups like black, white, man and woman... right?

I also said I can and sometimes do identify as SJW, just the type of social justice I "fight" for is clearly different than yours... and this usage is not common at all, so I usually disclaim it hugely to avoid confusion, since most people only use SJW for the group where the active confrontational methods overlap with a specific type of ideology, which is not my ideology. So as an abstraction and to shorten I went with SJW of type 1 and SJW of type 2... could you clarify what you found so objectionable about that please? I'm kind of surprised... I think you're enough of an academic and I assume understand the role abstraction plays to facilitate logic argumentation.

Anyway, all the rest of your post about how others use language here in the forum is rather tangential I think. It's not incorrect or false, just maybe misleading? You can cherry pick examples all you want, they will be absolutely true but still might indicate nothing about GOG in comparison to whatever control population. A stronger treatment would be needed to prove whatever broader point you're going for. As well, you are kind of begging the question. You do not grant the descriptive validity of the SJW moniker to any group a priori, whereas I guess if we deepdive I might be able to identify some descriptive value even in these derogatory usages. Note, descriptive value independent of the negative or positive moral attribution being assigned by the speakers - ergo objective, I might say.

First example used SJW to describe the anger and entitlement that the speaker believed to be behind some position on DRM.
Second example used SJW to describe a sort of radical thought process the speaker believes to be involved in... I guess usual net discourse?
Third example uses SJW to describe a sort of moralistic puritanism that the speaker believes is present in the perceived censors.

Are these generalizations, likely false if examined in depth and somewhat contradictory if one was to construct a definition of SJW from them alone? Well... probably yes, but so what? I thought you studied language enough to know this kind of fuzziness is present in every single word.

Anyway, this little devil's advocate game I just played is offered in the hope you will also clarify why you feel these examples make some point I have implicitly disagreed with, since I'm not really seeing the connection you're trying to make. I already agreed some use SJW in derogatory way... so if that was what you wanted to prove... why since I had already agreed? My point was you seem to consider that to be the only possibility if the speaker has a different ideology to yours, like me for example. Isn't that a fair representation of your position? I mean, you yourself have just stated you think I am being dishonest and lying to your face... what are you doing talking to me if you really believe that?

I'm not lying to you... for whatever stating it is worth. I'm not trolling you.

As to ethics in gaming journalism. I was never really very interested in said discussion except as an example of broader problems in journalism and contemporary sociopolitical debates. I will always be willing to discuss those topics, but I don't think either of us will be able to do it productively in the GG thread. If you want, we can have that discussion elsewhere, via PM even. The last time I tried to point out how an article about Eron Gjoni was an interesting example of demonization and showcased the kind of problems that are more general in journalism you know what happened.

As I said earlier, when the power to shut down opposing views is that easy, no wonder abuses of power happen. And as I said to Doug via email back then, all that you guys are doing with this IMO extremely radical focus on enforcing safe spaces, is creating a ghetto which will not serve you well. Maybe have a look at the link I posted, it's not a dry talk. And it might be better and less aggravating for you than continuing to engage me. Which I find tragic and sad, but whatever...

Bump for proving my point.

I think saying that this forum was classier before is like me thinking I would prefer to go back to the 90's, which were cooler.
Fucked up perception more correctly.

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?