If they were truly committed, they would have pulled the game down, issued refunds and then burned the computers that they used to perform those actions on.

Teh irony is OVER 9 BILLION!

Then it seems like they're tilting at windmills. I don't see there's much of a distinction between the two. When I said 'valuable thing' I didn't mean as in literally an object, there's an unspoken implication that if the 'something' is a person, then I mean to say that they are a valuable person.

That misunderstanding could be a result of the difference in interests between the male and female brain; ie. men are generally more interested in things, whereas women are more interested in people. When I say a woman is something valuable, I don't mean to say that she's literally an object, it's just my way of using language based on how my brain interprets the world differently than hers.

Yeah, you're not the arbitrator on that one. Archive is mostly the only source these days because these deceitful people are quick to lie, then remove the lie when they get caught from lying. You cannot dismiss the evidence when its the only evidence left. Yes, scientific conclusion is media is not harmful to a sane individual so suggesting otherwise is censorship. Jack Thompson kept saying video games caused violence and we don't let him get away that. But suddenly for some reason its fine to suggest video games cause misogyny. If they can do that, then they also cause violence, you cannot have one or the other. Suggesting media can make you violent or misogynist immediatly makes you a censorship advocate, that is the absolute fact. Oh my mistake, so all the christian pastors saying rap promotes violence and is harmful for the kids were not promoting censorship at all, they were just "concerned". Are you seriously thinking this? Are you saying we should listen to these pastors and maybe start cleaning up rap from nasty words? After all their concerns are sincere right? Don't you want to protect children?

According to your logic, this is not advocating censorship either: https://youtu.be/3YfJZxAai9w This makes the article advocate for censorship. Russians concerns for children are "sincere" too when they ban all homosexuality from media. Does that mean its not censorship and we should understand their decision? Look up the definition of censorship again: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive,

Its irrelevant how much they've been harassed or how sincere they feel they are, they engaged in a campaign of censorship. And no matter how many excuses you keep giving, IT IS CENSORSHIP BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD. It is not a viable argument if you keep reading the article like the devil reads the bible. For one last time I ask you to stop being dishonest. "I'm not seeing it" is not an argument, you have problems in seeing and you have problems in knowing what censorship means if that is the case.

Why do you keep being willfully ignorant even when you get presented clear evidence to the contrary of your beliefs? I'm not here to character assassinate you, you don't get any points from being stubbornly wrong. You laughed that "people defending GG don't have any proof", I showed you proof and then you say "its not good enough" with no reasoning whatsoever.

^This.

Things people do in games correlate very little with things people do in real life. Especially if we are talking about differnt things and not the same thing in game and real life. So, if someone claims that people who save princesses in games are more likely to treat women in real life as possessable objects, they should have hard research to prove than, not some hunches based on ther own skewed worldview.
Nice example, actually. But I think we can go even further and remember Christian Inquisition, which told people that witches were harmful and caused decline of morality. Inquisition never called to burn people - that was just decision of local authorities.

Ok. No one is objecting for you to want something. No one even object for you to get what you want.

Unless you
To get what you want.

The problem with the damsel in distress is that the damsel is never worth it and usually ends up sleeping with Luigi. Er, some other guy.

At about the same time our species is ending. How's that for irony? lol

Jack Thompson is a lawyer who actually got games censored by actual legal means.

Anita Sarkeesian is a cultural critic whose free speech rights are very uncomfortable to yous.

Do ones free speech rights include being free of the criticism and any legal consequence of that speech?

They certainly include the right not to respond to certain types of criticism and not to engage with clusters of harassers and/or sealions.

The interesting question, of course, is:

If cultural criticism is suddenly declared censorship after like a thousand years of cultural criticism, wasn't gamergate the greatest narrative media censorship campaign known to man?

Because, yeah, the whole "gaming is being colonized by Social Jewish Warriors" thing, as imbecile and oddly fascist as the idea is, it's still a form of cultural criticism disseminated through thousands of youtube videos, that potentially hurts sales and may lead to developers self-censoring just to soothe the mob and curb the harassment they're getting for giving a shit.

That is not what I asked. Especially since Sarkeesian DID respond and DID engage with people whom she called her harassers. By mocking amd humiliating them.

UPD. And just for the record, not all of those whom Sarkeesian called harassers were harassing her. Some of them were just cultural critics.

Well, of course not. You never engage with the topic at hand, you can just point fingers elsewhere. It's called whataboutism. And it's called JAQing off.

As opposed to the youtube videos I mentioned, Sarkeesian seldom went directly ad hominem with accusing her harassers. In fact, she seldom even mentions developer names in her videos, which is a strategy of de-escalation and curbs targeted harassment. I'm aware of a single case where Sarkeesian did attack an alt-right ideologue who went so far as to place himself in the first row at one of her panels, and fuck, you should have heard the guy whining like they cut off his dick and served the slices fried to all the men he called cucks. Yet what was he engaging in right there but the mockery and humiliation that you clearly erroneously attribute to the guy's favorite target?

Quick comparison of the cultural criticism we're getting here:

(1) A detail of the work of art may be problematic in that it may perpetuate negative stereotypes, but you can still enjoy and love the game while being critical of some of its aspects.

(2) The filthy Social Jewish Warriors/cultural marxists/feminists have infiltrated what is rightly OUR media and ours alone, and THEY INSULT US with diversity and inclusivity, a narrative of WHITE MALE INFERIORITY, by CATERING TO PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT US and most of all, taunt us with articles that tell us rape threats are a bit of a crossed red line. For THEM, EVERYTHING is racist and misogynist, Anita said so herself, look at this contextless seven second video I found linked to on 8chan, and all that even though Hitman clearly isn't misogynist because YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE THOSE GAME MECHANICS really, also THEY say video game violence is creating monsters (or was that a Donald Trump tweet? I don't care) so WE must FORCE GAMING TO BE FREE by telling everyone Tim Schafer is racist. Just go with it fellow dudes, it'll pay off! THEY SHOVE THEIR POLITICAL BULLSHIT into everything. We are not political! Also, vote for any party that promises to deprive non-binary people of their elementary rights of recognition, that will help.

I'll repeat: If you find cultural criticism to be censorship, the gamergate movement (as perceived and described by yourselves) was a censorship movement.

Except Toru Iwatani, whom she accused (falsly btw) of expressing "regressive cultural notions about women".

No, it's not, since if the game is called by name, that means personalities of its developers are clearly identified. Thus accusations of racism, sexixm, ets are still personal.

And how should I have heard the guy whining if he didn't whine neither in his response video, nor during the incident itself? Or are we are talking about different incidents? I mean the guy I am talking about wasn't "an alt-right ideologue", but he was called such by Sarkeesian and other people whom I don't call by their political views as a strategy of de-escalation.

He was trying to engage in rational discussion. Or you have a proof of the contrary, I suppose?