Now that's hilarious.

Same people who said ''Who is this 4chan?'' right? They should keep in mind their influence is declining as people share news face to face via social media more and more. Soon their agenda backed SJW crap and purposeful violation of the principles of journalism will be exposed and they'll see how accurate their reports on matters beyond their understanding were when they face unpopularity for the shit they did. The sheer fact that they find it so difficult to just write down and spread the truth is disgusting. They're now the middleman in a transaction where there is supposed to be none. Hope they shut down from all this corruption soon.

There are a surprising number of people who don't realize when they're doing something risky because they've never been hurt by it before, or because the area 'feels safe', or because they don't realize how impaired alcohol makes them, etc. A lot of the time someone does something foolish simply out of ignorance and providing relevant information can help improve behavior.

Blaming the victim because 'she's asking for it with that outfit' or similar excuses = sexist, much like 'he was black why did he think talking to a white woman is ok' = racist. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Sexism is one form of being a terrible, bigoted human being, much like racism and other forms of virulent bigotry.

Hmmm... your examples are loaded.

I think your education comment makes sense proactively, before I had understood you meant it reactively. The thing is, there is a lot of pushback against education, of the 'teach rapists not to rape' variety, implying potential victims are powerless and should be considered absolutely irresponsible for whatever is done to them. It's not either/or between educating potential victims vs potential rapists, and since criminals are let's say education resistant, I'd say it's stupid to go all in on irresponsibility.

Back to sexism. Saying anyone asked for rape is stupid, regardless of sex, gender, or species. How about the examples I actually posted earlier: human of any sex intoxicated by choice, comes to harm, is partially responsible. If harm is rape, said human is also a victim deserving help and support. However some harms may be accidental, in which case there is no crime nor victim, and the responsibility may be full, instead of partial. Actually the intoxicated human may be the crime perpetrator... please just admit it's possible to sincerely be of the opinion that rape victims may be partially responsible, and said opinion have zero sexist motivation. It depends on specifics.

Glad we could clear up the education thing.

BUT

No person is *ever* responsible for another adult's behavior. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior, with the limited exception child-or-disabled/guardian relationships.

Someone who takes advantage of a drunk person is choosing to be a criminal. Someone who gets drunk is choosing to get drunk. Those are different choices. One does not cause the other.

That sometimes people's choices make bad outcomes for them more likely is sad, and we all need to work together to make bad choices less attractive (ex, laws regulating bar and liquor store hours, MADD, teaching people to stand up against creepy behavior) and stop immoral people from taking advantage of those who make poor choices. But nobody is responsible in any degree for crimes that other people commit.

It's about cause - a person being drunk *does not cause* others to harm them. A person being drunk may cause them to harm themselves, in which case they are responsible. It may influence them to harm others, in which case they are responsible. But you getting drunk != making someone mug or assault you.

Remind me why your goverment imprisoned Charles Manson for life.

Factually it's already a must for video game journalist professionals to be a Steam curator – just like it's a must for game developers to release via Steam to survive. With one fell swoop, the publisher dependency that defines PC game developers today extends to video game journalism.

Valve attempts to control the mechanisms by which professional opinions about games are distributed to their customers (and 'their customers' generally means 99.5% of PC game customers).

That is quite frankly the most dangerous and outrageous conflation of industry and journalism that I've seen these last 25 years. Valve could introduce the 'service' right there at the height of gamergate, because Valve is sacrosanct.

For gamergate to demolish, for gamergate to say "the line was crossed", there would factually be no worthier cause than Curator at this moment. Unfortunately, it's all hypocrisy, and the only people that are attacked are the powerless. Makes for a better demonstration anyway.

Right, but you seem to think responsibility or causation can't be shared. My having responsibility does not diminish your responsibility. Victim blaming that we all oppose is to say the rapist is not responsible, you go farther and are implying the victim cannot absolutely be responsible otherwise it's victim blaming. Now in regards to rape and most other crimes involving violence the victim is not criminally responsible for the act itself, yet responsibility in general is a much different matter. If being sober you'd not be raped, yet drunk you were, then the intoxication you were responsible for did partially cause the rape without this removing more direct causes, and larger responsibilities.

These are not zero sum and I'd say a lot of stigma around rape is due to your attitude mate. This strange insistence that the victim must be pure contributes to victims blaming themselves. We should educate potential victims that their partial responsibility does not matter criminally, they should come forward and report fast, while criminal evidence is available. Think of similar dynamics in fraud against the elderly, or homicides while drug dealing... assumption of victim purity is biased, we should drop it. Responsibility is not a zero sum game.

Listen mate, my point is victim blaming is not necessarily sexist, rape is not a special crime, human moral agency is not black/white. Victims of crime or tragedies usually contribute in some degree to their victimization, this is tragically true, so instead of pretending otherwise we should adapt to it.

PS coincidentally just read this
http://chronicle.com/article/How-to-Be-Intoxicated/150239/

Hmmm do you see similar issues with user reviews? Why is the professionalism of the opinions relevant?

Ok, I think I understand now. I think the issue you are raising has more to do with Steam being a near monopoly than the curator program.

Considerably more market share in PC games distribution than google has in search engines, Amazon in ebooks or Apple in digital music is not what we call a "near" monopoly.

It is what we call a monopoly.

If such a monopoly tries to seize any kind of distributional mechanics for [professional/journalist] reviews as well – which is plainly what is happening here – all alarms of the consumer should go off, particularly at a time of supposedly heightened awareness.

Turns out there's no awareness at all.

Lol, oh wow did they get that wrong.

Btw, link related. Angry Joe also seems to have made an assortment of recent comments against GamerGate. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when this sort of thing happens, just a bit ironic considering how much he's considered himself pro consumer over the years and trying to stand up for gamers.

He doesn't seem to be defending her ideas, but her right to express her opinion without receiving threats. Seems sensible to me. The onlt place I disagree with him on his stance is his opinion that she she will try to take away our games, which I'm sure she will (not literally close game studios down, but promoting retarded SJW shit similar to what was suffered by the Divinity:OS devs). I think he's just neutral on the whole thing, saying ''just listen to what she's saying'' type people.

There are serious problems with what he is saying though.

Just because she had received threats shouldn't make her opinions immune to critique. Quite frankly, that is one of the stupidest arguments I continue to hear in this debate. Barack Obama receives death threats daily. Does that make him immune to any criticism? Heck, most of the YouTube commentators have also received death threats. Does that mean they are immune to criticism as well? Syringes and dead rats sent in the mail, etc.

Any controversial figure is going to receive a variety of reactions, from the reasonable to the extreme and just because the voices of the extreme say something uncalled for, shouldn't stifle the opinions of the more reasonable.

The real problem is if you follow the above advice, all reasonable critics should just shut up and then you are left with Anita and some of her radical ideas and the extreme radicals on the other side who will never just shut up. The voices of the reasonable become no part in the debate. When in truth, reasonable people should be the ones with the bigger voices.

The reasonable voices on both sides should be voicing their opinions. Telling the radical feminists its not right to misportray video games in a vain attempt to get them removed from store shelves and telling the other side that there is no place for threats and violence or name calling.
Also, I wish the term misogynist would just go away if its not going to be used properly. Misogyny is "hatred of women as a group". You can't tell me a portrayal of a strip club in a Hitman game was placed there because the developers hate women. I can understand that some women find that objectifying, but objectifying is not hatred. Heck, even someone sending a death threat to Anita is not misogyny, as long as they don't do it because they despise or disdain women as a group. It's some of these buzzwords that fuel the fires of this conflict.

Exactly, we shouldn't be extreme in our activities towards her and maybe some of the sheep will realize who's the radical here. Anyhow, I don't think I agree with Joe's opinion that developers should explore her ideas for better games.