This is what Speaking Truth to Power means

I just wanted to single this out as one of the best posts I've read here. I couldn't have written it better myself. Well said. I won't say more. :-)

I can see from your anger that you have actually lost the red thread of discussion. I can kindly guide you to the problem.

Klumpen et alii were attempting to prove to Fever how wrong he was in his assessment of gamergate. That attempt had two branches, (a) a defense of gamergate as a positive force and (b) a vilification of opposing groups. The instance of the Wu/Wardell meeting was brought up to serve as an exemplification of both. Here's the quote in full.

Scientifically speaking, to disprove an assessment made about "everyone", every single person in any given group, I would have needed just a single example to the contrary. I went way above and beyond that.

After the collection of data, I can also say that actually 'positive' comments on the matter were very scarce. Had Klumpen said "...how positive most people on the side of #gg were" or "...how positive a sizable chunk of #gg was", I would still have had to call his assessment extremely incorrect based on the data I've collected. Your assessment that "many" on the GG side were welcoming Wu's step is certainly incorrect as well, backed up without any data from your side. Collecting undeniably positive comments on specifically that matter will take you quite a bit as opposed to the minutes it took me to find large batches of abject, condemnable, negative comments.

"Cherry picking" is the allegation of focusing just on details from a vast amount of data. I assure you, from what I've seen on the RalphRetort alone, I could easily have copied 50% extreme hatred towards Wu, and another 40% mere "oh the SJWs" ranting. The site owner gleefully joined in the negativity. Positive comments were spotty, an odd occurrence in a heap of smack talk comments, especially when they did employ the pluralis sociativus.

That I pointed out, entirely on topic.

To address what you possibly erroneously have thought to be "the topic", i.e. the reaction of gamergate opposing groups: Your assessment that "virtually no one in anti-GG supported her for it" is probably correct owing to the facts that

(a) there is no "anti-GG" group and
(b) "virtually" means "not really".

It is correct that Wu's meeting with Brad Wardell wasn't welcome by many people. That wasn't the topic. The topic was the allegation that gamergate opposing groups were largely ("the other side") attacking Wu for this.

Sincerely, where's your data on that?

I urge you to find me one, just one gamergate opposing website on the entirety of the internet, that covered the Wu/Wa meeting and was flooded with comments of the same extremely negative nature we find on ralphretort.

It may be out there, I don't know. That's not my burden of proof, it's yours. I've only seen how reaxxion and the ralphretort were so desperate in their collection of negative comments that they both included Katherine Cross' expression of love and respect for Brianna Wu, about the politest form of critique there was.

You go out and pick your cherries, but for every abject comment on Wardell/Wu from gamergate opposing groups, I give you 10 from gaters.


Too bad that this easily applies to 100% of the posts in this thread.

question - isn't 'the power' the dominant force? i.e. the EA's and UBI's and so on of this world?

Sorry to rewind a bit but were you saying it only appeared in the GTA Wiki because feminists are talking about it and therefore it couldn't be ignored?

OK so what if we go to GameFAQs and see the GTA III FAQs that were written at the time, before 'neo-fems' or even Jack Thompson came along? (italics added by me for emphasis):

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/548931-grand-theft-auto-iii/faqs/20460

B. Hooker Trick
========================================
Picking up Hookers is a neat trick added into Liberty City. Girls prowl the
streets awaiting customers. Simply pull into her path on the drivers side in
a car. Ensure it is not a Taxi or a Police Car as they seem to shy away from
these. Anyway, if you do it right, she should bend down and 'discuss terms'
with you, before getting in. She costs a dollar a minute, so speed to your
hideout or some other hidden place like a bunch of trees and 'do the business'
whilst your health increases to 125. After this shoot her down and take your
money back.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/548931-grand-theft-auto-iii/faqs/14620

Hooker Trick
-------------

You must have at least HEARD about this. Basically, you must grab an okay
looking car, but not a police car or ambulance. Now, drive up to a hooker.
They really stand out in a crowd, with their black boots, red coat and black
bra. Anyways, pull up to one, and she should come over and bend over,
appearing as if she's talking to you. After a while, she should climb into a
car with you.

While she's in the car, a dollar will be deducted for every second you spend
with her. Talk about expensive! Anyway, head to the nearest alley. Stop your
car and keep still. The car will begin to rock, and your health will start to
recover. It will be slow at first, but gradually, the pace will pick up a
little. Each "session" with the hooker will gain you 40 health points. You
can exceed the maximum--up to 125--if you rock it when your health is at 99--
85 at the least.

When the girl leaves the car to stretch, exit your vehicle and [i]make her give
you your money back, that expensive bitch![/i]

Also, if you pick up a chick in a convertible (without a hood), she'll leave
the car with your health full and without going through the car-rockin'
interactive frame. Cool! Although she still does take your money. [i]Let the
girl go. She's done you a favor, foo.[/i]

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/548931-grand-theft-auto-iii/faqs/15502

HOOKER TRICK
=============================================================================

The hooker trick is the trick everybody knows about. To do so, search for a
pretty car. A sentinel or similar will do good, but make sure is not a taxi,
or an emergency vehicle. Then, look for a hooker. They have black bra and
mini-skirts. When you find them, park next to them without scaring them, and
wait here to get inside your car. Once she is inside your car, you'll lose 1
dollar per second.

When she does, look for an obscure site. Any alleyway or even your hideout
will do. Park the car there, and it'll begin to shake. You'll also begin to
recover health. Once you reach 125, the hooker will leave. Now, if you want
to recover your money, kill the hooker and get it.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/548931-grand-theft-auto-iii/faqs/14437

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [19.1] Hooker Trick |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

This trick works best in the Red Light District. Get any car, except for a
police car, FBI car, Ambulance, Fire Truck or Taxi, and pull alongside the
sidewalk next to a girl wearing a brown outfit. She will walk over to the car
and begin bending over, like she's talking to you. A few seconds later she
will get in the car. Drive to a secluded area (or your hideout) and stop the
car. Be quick about it, because your money will drain for the amount of time
she's in the car.

Once the car is stopped, it will begin rocking. It'll rock slow, then it'll
get faster. Your health is replenishing, but your money is depleting. Using
the hooker, you can get your health up to a maximum of 125. When you reach the
maximum health, she'll get out of the car.

Now, if your feeling particularly cold-blooded, you can get out of the car,
chase after the hooker, beat her, and take your money back. [i]Gotta love this
game.[/i]

The prosecution rests, m'lud

*edit* why did some of the italics tags not work? Oh well - you can see the ones I wanted to highlight, anyway

Meanwhile back in Gamergateland

If you think it's paranoid to believe "they're coming for your games and then they're coming for you". Think again, Washington is gearing up for The War On Gamers as evidenced by this op-ed hit piece titled "Sexism in cyberspace" - a kind of declaration of war on gamers written by Congresswoman Katherine Clark and published in the Washington political tabloid The Hill.

In this document she declares In a truly belligerent article with hatemongering rhetoric that might be directlty from the worst tumbr neofem anti-gaming trash she declares, without citing evidence, that gamergate has and it goes on and on As usual some truth can be found from the people in the comments section (it's suprising they let them thru their vetting system!). A few samples. But don't just take my word for it. Read the whole thing right here. It's for real. This sh*t is happenning right now!

You don't think neo-fems were around before GTA 3? How naive are you? I can trace this sort of extremism back to the late 60's. GTA 3 is much later than that.

And what exactly does this prove? That some players chose to kill them as per the general game mechanics?
In fact, your examples betray you as some of them even suggest you shouldn't or don't have to kill them.

So once again, you go and try to distort the truth.

No one is arguing that there aren't players who make that choice, and even in extreme cases have made You Tube videos to that effect. This is an open-world game which allows the players to make choices. How many games have you killed every NPC regardless of gender or race because the game allows it and you gain extra gold for it? Does that make you sexist or racist? Does that make you a monster? My guess is it does make you a hypocrite though...

But I will tell you, the developers are not guilty. They did not force the decision, they just left it to the player. All they provided was the opportunity to exchange cash for health. This, in addition to the general game mechanic that all NPCs have currency on them. Heck, how many games can you buy items or trade items and either steal or kill the shopkeeper to get your money back. This mechanic is certainly far from unique.

To ban the game because of the actions of some players is foolhardy and this seems to be what you are supporting. You keep making excuses for the petitioners. You support them for their lies and distortions and bans and censorship. You are no better than them...

Seriously, who listens to such people?
I learned in school, that you simply cannot quote and claim without delivering source, everyone who did this had very bad marks and well deserved.

Klumpen
you don't have to put on the quote line
Those days are over
You don't have to tell the truth to the world

Klumpen
You don't have to make that research tonight
Search the evidence for facts
You don't care if it's wrong or if it's right

Seriously though, unless you are in a hard science, circle- and self-quoting has become common practice. All that's important is that you have a person with a title backing you up, even if that person is you. Normal people don't have the time to look at everything, they will simply see a person in a newspaper and that's good enough. And that's what is so dangerous, you have these rich people who have the power to simply buy what they want.

Oh, so it's one of those gamergate memory erase "back to version 0.1 of the discussion" moments?

That's brilliant, absolutely brilliant. No wonder you "win" all your arguments.

Sorry I didn't notice earlier. So no data from you, huh.

Hey, have a good time in fantasy land.

Sad to see the government of "Vatican City" is using gamergate as yet another excuse to spy on your asses. And, of course, it's only just an excuse, and only just another excuse. Your governments, both 'sides' and the oh so vast political 'spectrum' in between, have always used video games as a scapegoat for mass shootings and terrorism, deflecting off the countries' ridiculous gun laws as laid down in the declaration of war that constitutes "Vatican City's" foundational law. Gamergate's giving them yet another reason to fuck with you. Compared to previous "reasons", this is obviously the best they have ever had at their disposal. Still not a good reason.

I'm truly sorry that such a great country has this kind of sorry ass political system. Not that other countries are that much better.

Those articles show how little people care about the fact they're killing prostitutes. They are killing them for the health; or their money; not because they're female. Is it that difficult for you to undestand from the tone the people write in? Does it describe a psycho fantasizing or a guy just giving tips on exploiting a game?

pot meet kettle

Fantasy land, no, that is where you live. I've had enough of your lies and distortions. All you do is continue to make excuses for your cherry-picked lies and hatred of others. You are a despicable disgusting individual and prove it post after post. It's people like you and your narrow-mindedness that form groups such as the Nazis or Al-Qaeda.

You do not provide "data", you provide distortions. All you are trying to do is distract from the real issue. Convert the argument into meaningless drivel. Your insistence that you are trying to prove there are some bad apples in Gamergate as an excuse to cherry-pick quotes and cast Gamwergate in a bad light, shows what an asshole you really are.

In this particular case, the issue is who received the coffee meeting of Brianna Wu and Brad Wardell better. Your cherry-picked quotes does not change this. Thus proving how you are just trying to change or distort the topic. Anti-GG almost without question condemned the meeting, and seemingly most of GG endorses such discussion. Only zealots refuse compromise. This instance demonstrates how anti-GG is far more extreme. How with us or against us they are. Those are the scary people in the world. Gamergate, we just want to play games without being called names and without asshole social justice advocates pulling their dirty tricks to get games censored and banned for false reasons.

Reported.

-_- Well firstly I MEANT 'Back before gender politics in computer games was anywhere near as much of a hot topic as it is today' - 'came along' as in 'got involved in messing with our hobby'

"your examples betray you as some of them even suggest you shouldn't or don't have to kill them"
Betrays me? How? It actually proves multiple points I was trying to make - 'shouldn't' why exactly? It's hard to argue that it's not the 'correct play' in min / maxing, optimal play terms
I'm playing Icewind Dale at the moment and sure I CAN kill shopkeeper for loot but I have to be damn sure that I've finished with their services because, by doing that I've suddenly lost my infinite supply of cheap-as-chips arrows, bolts and sling-shots, even if I rob him with thieving skills, if I get caught the town watch come down on me which is pretty much a death sentence
But GTA? You don't get 5 wanted stars you get a chance of one which you can shrug off pretty easily, and if you're still in the dark alley you took the hooker to, a particularly slim chance. Also AFAIK there's not a finite number of hookers in any of GTA's cities - more will always spawn and there's not even any mechanic where the girls start to suspect you and it's hard to get one to trust you or anything
SO the only grounds someone would have for saying you 'shouldn't' are purely moral this proves 2 things

A - Even some of the guys who are so into GTA that they take their time to write the fan FAQ documents, and all the crazy, messed up stuff the series has you doing stop and go 'Ooh really? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that' when it comes to the full 'Hooker Trick' (as you'll notice all 4 FAQs call it)
B - Turns out that I'm not a crazy outlier for applying moral judgements to my GTA playthroughs and it's not just a dispassionate, intellectual exercise of numbers, pixels and status bars.

I mean, I know you guys took my 'I'm not a monster' comment WAY too seriously, I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the freedom to roleplay evil / amoral / darkside or whatever and yes it IS an interesting moral choice in GTA, one of the few where the amoral decision is all up-side, except for your conscience and its interesting to be presented with that choice, teaches you something about who you are as a person. BUT I do understand why people are upset with that sort of choice being presented to children

So I always wondered why this petition was targeting... Target and not Rock Star or the Australian Government so I tried to find the 'stocking filler' ad the petition mentions and holy fuck balls check this ad out towards the bottom of this article:
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/398479,target-pulls-grand-theft-auto-v-from-shelves.aspx

They've put the heading 'toys' and then put GTA V with it's clear 'R18 +' rating badge right next to Barbie and Pepper freaking Pig! Imagine if the Departed or a a box set of the 50 Shades of Gray books where there instead, and OK those aren't interactive in the same way so what about a Rampant Rabbit? That would come under the heading 'toys' much more legitimately than GTA V, in MY book!

Not only is it wildly inappropriate and irresponsible to children, I also feel insulted as an adult gamer that my hobby is being represented, yet again, as a toy for kids!

The petition is worded from a certain angle, with a certain agenda, as the article I linked to says:

"The petition is right in stating "Games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women."
Though, more accurately, it should say that Target has no business selling an R18 game as a child's plaything."

But, having now seen the evidence, as a petition against Target and their irresponsible and insulting advertising policies, I support it wholeheartedly!