Except the only thing you see on TV is 'Eric Garner Choke Hold'. They don't have any other words to use? Instead it riles up people when they're already protesting and angry. They're simply finding only the exact words that will make people angry. My question is still 'Why don't the NYC police have non-lethal things to take down people resisting arrest that the police physically cannot make move'. The dude was easily a head and a half taller then both officers and heavier then both.

But of course, no one wants to ask THOSE questions, it's easier to report on race, or police brutality.

All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost. ;) The drunk doesn't always make good prey, and people tend to be louder when they think a fool is in their presence, and more guarded around the wise man.

They have no integrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734

So you think I'm a jerk and you're not.

Here's nuance for you: I didn't say, I implied, stuff about you. You seemed to care about that distinction a while ago?

Yet I qualified my implications almost to a fault. And I think I was clear: I don't think you're bad, but I do think you at some level consider GG to be morally in the wrong. I didn't take that out of my hat, I documented it. And for the record: I'm happy you now say often and clearly GG isn't bad. Even if I think the You of some days back had a more nuanced opinion.

Look, here's your logical contradiction in a nutshell:

So which is it? Can I still think the reasons you gave are moral? That's our disagreement dude! I have chosen to take the opportunity you gave me (Thanks! O_o) and make it very explicit that I disagree and why. YES it's moral, of course it's moral. You and everyone else that thinks morality is NOT at stake are in denial!

So was it an opportunity or a threat? Here's why I'm right, agree or else "what's the point of having a conversation"?

I mean you actually think I dropped the topic, but the whole "GG is bad because it harasses non-journalists" is exactly what I'm still arguing with you. The post I replied was basically you saying the non-journalism of the people GG engages/attacks changes the rules somehow. As you see, from that monster post(s):

1 - I disagree these people are non-journalists. 2 - I disagree the rules change. 3 - I disagree there is some logical contradiction either on tolerance, or indoctrination. See? I actually listen and reply to your points.

So if you stopped thinking I'm in some logical contradiction, and we understand each other's terminology, then for sure we could move on to why expecting tolerance is not harrassment, why demanding objectivity from subjective beings is not harassment, etc... To be honest, that argument is already implicit between the lines though.

But whatever, it's your thin skin. Your prerogative.

Here's an analogy for you as closing thought: Anita Sarkeesian = Me, Gamergate = You. In what sense? In the sense that you're taking moral umbrage despite my "academic" performance. The difference being, I think I actually was objective, whereas Anita is mostly a political hack. And that is why I feel justified to tell you you're full of shit, whereas you doing it to me I see as uncalled for. Not false though; I am full of shit, sure.

If anything this is such a perfect illustration of how the personal is political, in the sense that any personal critique is so hard to accept in public... Ego and emotions, there's humanity in a nutshell. Whatever. What've you done with the reasonable htown? :(

Let's keep this simple. Which of the reasons that I gave, do you think related to the morality of #gg?

When have I said #gg is bad because it harasses non-journalists? I gave you a list or reasons why I don't like #gg. Which one of those reasons did you think referred to harassment of non-journalists?

Aren't those comments just your opinion. What has that got to do with #gg's morality?

Ok, let's try one more time. For my sunken cost, and mutual redemption...

Historically, the main point of contention was whether the ISIS analogy was malicious or just unfortunate. Let's agree to disagree on that: some ppl believe the first, you believe the second, I'm kind of in the middle.

At this time I think your argument is that GG demands are sometimes oppressive (I don't mean threats or insults, I mean strictly the ethical demands on behavior), my very limited point is that your argument is ethical (both its subject and itself). And I disagree on fact. If the demands were oppressive I'd agree with you the demands would be wrong, I actually disagree the demands are oppressive (there's exceptions, I excluded threats very consciously).

Maybe I misunderstood your argument and reasons, you sure seem to object to the "GG harasses subjective opinionators" characterization, yet my memory is you pretty much said so explicitly. Whatever, let's agree to disagree on that as well. What do you dislike about GG again? Please tell me like I'm 6 years old ok? I'll reply both: if I think that your dislike is related to ethics or not, and whether I agree or disagree with those dislikes. Sound good?

For the time being, I'm ignoring your meta question about subjective opinions, universal morality and their relation. Despite this being the kind of question I'd love to write another wall of text on. Suffice to say that yes, I suspect and perceive our opinions on that relation are different (seems to me you don't even see such relation).

Edit for readability and precision.

*** INTERMISSION ***

Too much discussion here, it gets boring, we want to see blood on the walls! Like the Romans: Give us bread and games!

So, here is the latest video of AS : "25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male"
http://youtu.be/E47-FMmMLy0
Let the flame war begins!

PS: this video made me laugh rather than feeling offended :)

http://www.ablegamers.com/ablegamers-news/ablegamers-statements-about-this-weekend

Mercedes Carrera
=> I approve this.

Anyway, I guess I've missed something in the text because what would prevent them from organizing a different stream directly in coordination with Brazzers and not through in-betweens if they already have contacts with them?

I do not know if you have any knowledge of the meanings of the words you use. Or if you are just a solipsist who builds his own semantics for the language and words he uses.

Sect:

A group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

A group that has separated from an established Church; a nonconformist Church.

A philosophical or political group, especially one regarded as extreme or dangerous.

Gamers and even the subsets of different classes of Gamers you list( are neither a group following a different religious belief, nor a group which has separated from a church, nor are they a philosophical or political group. So I have no idea why are you using the word "sects" to refer to a classification of gamers in several groups.

Gaming is a hobby, a worldwide hobby which encompasses all sorts of individuals from different countries, with different views, different cultural backgrounds and coming from different societies and from all social classes as well as both genders, . We are talking about hundreds of millions of people on the globe.

Games are provided by companies and developers from all over the world. It is a consumer market, you as a consumer are free to choose what games you play. If you do not like the content of a game or think it offends you or is morally, ethically harmful in your eyes, you do not have to play it, you can even boycott the company if you like or call for a boycott of a company - nothing prevents you from doing that.

If you have any proof that games are or a specific game is responsible for wars, social unequality, poverty, a rise in the crime rate, unemployment, political or religious radicalism or the general decline of moral and ethical values on our world, feel free to post any sources.

And since you seem to like to play the Islam card. Just because a human individual believes in another religion with their own views, moral and ethical values, which do not necessarily coincide with yours or your opinion how things must be or a society has to look like, it doesn't mean that they are evil or wrong. No one prevents you to propagate it if you think it is wrong or evil, but do not wonder when you are met with resistance and opposition.

#GamerGate is a Hashtag, nothing more, nothing less. Neither does it represent all gamers in the world, nor does encompass all gamers in the world. To tweet with this Hashtag you even do not have to be a gamer.

Since you are following the Bill Maher show and seem to be interested in that media dung, have fun with it. If somebody shits on a front lawn he has to be prepared...blabla. read above.

In my opinion, the one poster was right, you try with loaded words to troll people: religion, Islam, ISIS, sects and so on.

I'm saying and believe the exact opposite of those things. That's the entire point. I'm not 100% convinced that you actually read my posts or understood the point I was making, because it's like you're arguing with an imaginary version of me in your head instead of the me who's actually posting things.

"Sects" was admittedly poor word choice on my part.

I find it a peculiar that porn is being used for charity and I saw that the charity had network issues which was implied to be coming from gamergate like the editor of the once good PCGamer.

http://i.imgur.com/kJAGSZD.png I'm not sure if he's trying to look like dexter on purpose.
http://www.sho.com/site/image-bin/images/323_2_0/323_2_0_01_444x250.jpg

Its not so much that I dislike #gg, its that I disagree with it. Here is my quote from 2 days ago:

"I know you REALLY REALLY REALLY want me to think that all of #gg is morally bad. You can think that if it helps you sleep at night, but its not true. I think there are people in #gg who are morally bad, there are people in anti-gg who are morally bad, there are people everywhere who are morally bad, but I don't think #gg is.

I think #gg is an movement full of intellectual lightweights who conflate journalistic integrity with anti-SJWism, who seem unable to understand subtleties and nuance, who think readers should be able to tell journalists what to say, who on the one hand are against conflicts of interest with indie developers, but ignore potential conflicts of interest with AAA companies and use the potential conflict of interest with advertisers to further their goals (I could go on).

p.s. I actually quite like the 76ers. Their coach coached in Australia for a long time. They are a terrible team but I think the players at least try. I guess that pretty much sums of #gg for me."
lol. welcome to my world :)

i have learnt the internet isn't ready for an analogy unless the analogy goes something like this "apples are analogous to apples as they are both fruits and good for you" but even then you'll probably get in trouble...

0_o
I'm almost believing you're doing this on purpose. Note, I do see the nuance of saying not so much. I also see that my focus on the moral nuances of what you have been saying, does not mean I am fabricating them. You're getting the reaction you're getting in this thread because of shifting the goalposts while spinning like a top.

Let me remove the insults which apply to humanity in general (both GG and antiGG) and fix stuff for you, you may be surprised to find out, that by walking back on your previously implied ethical claims, we mostly agree:

Do go on. As it should be obvious (meteor impact level of obvious), I have a lot to say on our disagreements: on the ethical nature of objectivity in journalism (demanding a how, rather than a what), as well what the mission of journalism should be (integrity being or not possible together with any ideological priority like social activism).

PS how da fuck is strikethrough done...
Edit: done