1.Some game journalists happened to let themselves judge the standard for diversity; because they were Nelson Mandela.
2.They entered for a job and made friendships and later relationships with eachother and games devs.
3.They communicate with eachother to push one message on as many sites as possible.
4.Define real gamer
5.Logic/10 IGN

Did you even read the Gawker article? It claimed this group formed specifically because the number of women and minorities who have been winning most of the Hugo nominations and awards. And look at your list, there are a whole lot of women on that list especially for a genre that is supposedly so white male dominated. To further the point, its only when the situation gets rather out of hand that such a counter measure will be successful.

To be honest, I'm not up on current sci-fi. I made those claims by reading between the lines of that one-sided Gawker article.
Notice anything wrong with this picture?
https://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1546

Maybe romance novels need more "diversity" in the form of male authors? How do you think that would go over? So then, why is it so okay to change gaming demographics merely because it lacks diversity?

Oh yes, I read that a number of women and non-white authors were winning Hugo awards, I didn't read that "almost all recent winners have been minorities". Ask yourself this question, where did you get that from?

And that list, absolutely, a number of women writers, but "almost all"?

I can't imagine that any sane person would argue that more diversity in romance novels would be a bad thing. If male authors would like to write them they should absolutely do so.

I wonder, I may have misunderstood, but you seem to be on the "anti-diversity" side of this discussion. If you are, do you think more diversity in romance novels would be a bad thing as well?

If you are not on the anti-diversity side, do you think the "anti-diversity group" in the sci fi scene would be also against diversity in the romance novel scene?

We have talked about capitalism, in PMs I think, and in other threads as well. Which threads I'm less sure right now, as there have been several in the past 6 months or so. For example, it could have been related to arguments that objectivity in journalism is in the service of corporate interests. (PS: does that count as conspiracy theory or are they all on the GG side?)

Anyway, my takeaway is we're having a more open dialogue when our ideological assumptions are explicit. So if you want to ask me something feel free to. Whether you missed it in the past or not is somewhat irrelevant as I just wanted to make a personal point that I feel our dialogue is advancing, if slowly - I certainly feel like I'm dragging us forward incrementally, though you jump in frequently so I don't really feel guilty over it, because you clearly have something to express that you care about.

In relation to our sides, I'm happy you don't think me as against freedom of speech. That said the fact I don't identify as GG is not what makes me pro freedom of speech. My opinion is that the side that is most strongly against freedom of speech is the antiGG side. I don't think I ever said anything else, ever since the heavy comment moderation / censorship across Gaming communities during the Zoe discussions. That said, since you yourself brought up that we disagree what censorship is I'll leave it at that for now.

The connection to the Indiana law is to me obvious, and since you yourself admitted / recognized the deeper cultural war currents to this topic seems to me you're being somewhat disingenuous. Want to discuss any of that further? Ask away...

If you hadn't puzzled my libertarianism by now you either are quite biased to see me as as extreme-right of some type, or you couldn't care less about my individual politics. If it's the second great, but even so having it made explicit can't hurt. I guess...

On my closing paragraphs... yes, I packed a lot in there. I see related arguments particularly in closing which you might prefer to separate.
Let me charicature my main point to a level that it actually becomes false and stops being my point in the hopes you get it.
Me: Social justice is bad. This is about ethics in gaming / journalism / life / politics... whatever.
You: Social justice is political, not ethical at all.
Me: Of course it's political, but it's ALSO ethical. SJW are bad. Wrong. Anti freedom. Totalitarian. Oppressive. Perverse. EVIL!
You: I don't know what you're saying... but that's nothing to do with ethics.
Me: 0_o

"Bottom line, your argumentation with me is ... begging the question, because you just don't see anything to disagree on at a deeper level. ... Of course the fundamental disagreement is political, but it's also ethical. When we look at a specific front in the culture wars, the ethics have not suddenly disappeared, they're there if only you'll actually engage them. Obviously your side doesn't want to engage at that level. I can tell you why. Because it would legitimize the opposition. Why give them a fair chance when dehumanization and ridicule got you so far in achieving progressive goals in the past century? That's what counts right, achieving the goals... Eggs and omelettes...at what point do you cross the ethical line? Or do you really think there is no line at all?"

Although others have stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think if we get over your hangup over seeing this as ethics rather than mere partisan power politics the remaining points in there would become clearer. Namely that I see your side's constant refusals to engage the ethics level of this discussion as either: subconscious elitist prejudice and ivory tower arrogance, or conscious radical pragmatism and unjust hipocrisy.

Finally, given how you just described the content of the Cracked article suffice to say I'm likely more informed than you on the background and context. I had counted on parallels being obvious that aren't. Was this article your first information on the Sad Puppies topic? A reductivist statement would be that the Cracked article is about the elite of SciFi being very displeased how the populace of SciFi voted / expressed themselves. Effective propaganda and recruitment though, seeing as it left you with the impression that the democratic empowering actions of group A are: illegitimate, wrong, shady, abusive, etc...

But it's nothing to do with ethics. Right? :) Please note, I'm not saying there's no politics involved. I assume we agree there are. But our real disagreement is on ethics. You just can't seem to accept it.

Why is this thread discussing a sci fi awards show?

Because some fucked up SJW journalists are trying to blame Gamergate for it...
http://gawker.com/how-gamergate-radicals-seized-sci-fis-most-prestigious-1696731611

"Do you realize it's taken me to call you flat out anti capitalist before we got here?" Sorry, I assumed you made that comment because you thought you had recently spoken about it. I don't understand why you would have mentioned it otherwise. In any event, if you did mention it, it made no impact on me.

Can you tell me about the pizzeria being burned?

What do you think is the connection between the #gg/SJW culture war and the attempted passing of religious freedom laws in Indiana?
How do you feel about the laws (before the recent amendment)?

I guess I see libertarians as being against intervention. The fact that you seem to be calling for regulation of journalism (it must conform to what you say is ethical), to be a distinctly un-libertarian value.

You misunderstand my point. I didn't ever say social justice is not ethical, I said a journalist writing from a genuinely held perspective (whether its social justice, environmental justice, animal justice, men's rights, feminism, etc) is ethically neutral.

I guess I misunderstood your point as well. I thought you were saying that anyone writing from a subjective perspective was unethical, but you were saying that only people writing from a particular subjective perspective were unethical. So its no so much about subjectivity, its "evil" subjectivity that is the problem?

I'm a pretty big sci fi fan. I've been reading books and watching the original star treks, etc, (as SJW as they were) for more decades than I would like to count. I'm pretty familiar with the Hugos (I even voted once, maybe 10-15 years ago...) and have paid a bit of attention to the Sad Puppies thing (as irrelevant as it is). I've seen a vocal minority of people being displeased with how things have gone, I've seen the majority of the sci fi community ignore them (I mean, who care's right, you read what you want to read, I'll read what I want to read) and I've seen them get angry about that and try to recruit people who aren't really interested in sci fi, or have a passing interest, help them "rectify" things. The reality is, it doesn't really matter, popular sci fi books will continue to sell (whether they are written by white people or not).

First, I highly doubt there are people not really interested in sci-fi, shelling out $40 for the right to vote. That part is made up rhetorical bullshit. Its pandering to paranoia. If the sad puppies have gained this much support, I feel its much more likely the result of honest people rebelling against SJW diversity politics which they felt has pushed the pendulum too far. People who believe that books of the genre are receiving votes more on the "diversity" of the author than merit. Essentially, the same way Gamergate is a revolt against the growing agenda politics in gaming journalism.

Second, don't confuse SJWs and actual social justice. Star Trek was not "SJWs". Star Trek was about equality. Social justice without the overpush of "warriors". This is the difference between equality feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Liana Kerzner and the extreme advocates such as Leigh Alexander. SJWs are the deceivers, the liars, the distorters, anything to push their end goals. People like Ms. Sommers do their best to keep these extremists in check by dispelling their lies and distortions to pursue the honest goal of equality feminism (for example). They believe that these lies are counterproductive to the end goal of actual equality.

Klumpen0815 & HiPhish.
How nice to provide blatant confirmation of vicious transphobia on your part.
Saves the trouble of considering your arguments even remotely legitimate, and neatly declares your existence to be of no merit whatsoever to humanity or the universe as a whole.

Scotchmonkey seemingly too.
(Not to mention someone using the 'r word' up there.)

How kind and "inclusive" these Gamergaters are... /s

So so disappointing..
Like I said earlier: they can't maintain ethics themselves, much less ethics in videogame journalism.
(Also it's kinda funny how people stopped trying to claim what I said was unsubstantiated and either argued the equivalent of "Hitler did nothing wrong" or ignored it.)
[Keep up, boys. The science ain't on your side; it's infested with them darn social justice mages.]

Since someone mentioned the 'Puppies' thing:
The slate/s were predominately men, even if they happened to include the odd woman and non-white people.
(I don't know why "They weren't ALL white men!!!" is even an argument. Yeah, well done, generalisations are generally technically incorrect.)
They also included whatshisface (Wright; I forget his first name), a homophobic militant Christian.
At that point, it's not so much "disagree with" as "this scumbag refuses to recognise the humanity of some people and afford them the same rights/privileges he enjoys based purely on their sexuality and/or romantic inclinations".
No-one like that (whether their bigotry is exerted towards sexuality, gender, ethnicity, etc.) is someone that I would feel remotely comfortable supporting, nor could I personally partake of their work and enjoy it.
(I know some people seem to be able to enjoy problematic things, but for me personally there's a difference between "this content creator kind of said/did some questionable shit" and "this content creator is actively and openly an asshole".
The latter makes it impossible for me to actually enjoy the content, because the fact that they are awful taints it.)
So, short version: Fuck that guy.
Also: Fuck the guys that are pushing their wee agenda.
(If they sincerely cared about more representative sci-fi being included, they'd have tried to get everyone that is already entitled to vote to read up and vote. Or general sci-fi fans to vote. Not this "HERE ARE THINGS WE HANDPICKED FOR YOU" pish.)

"Then the SJWs came for my videogames".. right, guys?
Ahhh, fun.
(Though if we're honest they likely wouldn't come for even a 1% of the games I own. Though how I wish they would come for Bad Rats. Please, someone take that abomination away.)

Oh, the asshole is back!

So what happens if the best book of a year is written by a "homophobic militant Christian" for the sake of argument?
Shouldn't the best book win? Who gives a shit about one's personal beliefs beyond the actual content of a given book or video game. But somehow you and your fucked up SJW buddies get to decide who is "worthy" of any given award or rating. Who's pizza place is worthy of being burned to the ground to prevent their homophobia.

This is why people like you are are fucking idiots. Just attack and attack and character assassinate while dodging, distorting or evading any reasonable argument. You write a lot and say nothing. Go fuck yourself....

Good to know you're judgmental and self righteous enough to ignore facts and let your emotions do the talking. Check out Community Justice system from Bolivia. It involves in emotionally charged people accusing others without proof and the winning side gathering up a mob and stringing up the other side on a traffic light; and no one can get arrested because that's the constitution. Bet you're wet for that right?

You see; matters of importance are decided in courts of law so that innocent people don't get lynched by hot headed ''social revolutionaries'' like you. Emotion for logic and claims for proof aren't simply enough for humans. It will not pass on justice; simple as that.

Disprove an argument you don't agree with and then attempt to claim the moral high ground. You'll be flyin off with a pinch of proof and a swish of evidence and small drop of other condiments a few posts later; but at least try to make it presentable enough for the arguing partner.

And please don't smite me; since thou obviously has the power to decide who has what and what not that can or can't benefit humanity. All hail the moody goody God!

Nah, for sure it wasn't recent chronologically, but then again, you're becoming more active after somewhat of an hiatus.

On the pizzeria being burned I'm fairly sure I read about threats of it being spread via twitter. Or maybe it was incitement, not threats. Google for it, I'm sure you'll find it, sorry I don't have a link to give you.

As far I can understand the Indiana law is trying to protect individuals with religious beliefs from being coerced into performing actions that go against their beliefs. The examples of discussion, of which the whole pizzeria brouhaha exemplifies, had to do with catering to gay weddings, which is a cause celebre of the same groups that oppose GG, Sad Puppies etc... let's call them SJWs? I might be assuming, but let's take you as an illustrative example. We all know you consider GG to be a reactionary political group right? You seem to have similar opinion of the Sad Puppies campaign underlying motivations, yes? So here's a question, do you consider it legitimate that anyone should be able to refuse catering a gay wedding? Do you support coercing them into "tolerant" actions?

Now my opinion on the law itself (as I understood it) is that it shouldn't be required. Sign of the times that consequences of freedom of speech and association are not obvious in themselves. That horse is truly out of the barn though, many folks consider themselves entitled to others' labor. What do you think about it?

Libertarians aren't against regulation (I assume you mean legal). They're against coercion. At least me. Self regulation is voluntary and therefore perfectly fine. I make no regulatory demand on journalism, and I wonder where you got that idea (projection much?) I make an ethical demand on journalism. I go further, that as we have discussed the requirement of objectivity is actually a part of the codes of conduct adopted by journalists themselves.


Now, you are clearly refocusing into the specific journalism angles, although I think it's obvious in context that we left those specifics behind a while ago. In a way you are proving my point that you don't want to engage the actual ethical diagreement, and it seems to me you are going back to the ethics of journalism to avoid the broader ethical aspects.

If we are talking specifically about journalism, then yes, I do believe all subjectivity is ethically wrong, and there is a let's say universal (inside journalism) need for objectivity.
If we are talking about expression and communication more in general, then obviously the objectivity need stops being about professional ethics and becomes about political ethics.

Put another way, I understood your point a long time ago, and I disagree that "a journalist writing from a genuinely held perspective (whether its social justice, environmental justice, animal justice, men's rights, feminism, etc) is ethically neutral." Didn't we even discuss a relative of yours in PM? A good (that word again, how surprising) journalist will write both sides and be objective, he should be ethically neutral to be a good journalist, which yes, may interfere with being a good human. As you see you also understood my point, and the confusion to me comes from your muddying the waters between our discussion specifically over journalism, versus the broader opinions we have over what is right or wrong in society.

And again, you and your side are the ones that defend mission journalism. You are the ones that want to impose in some way a particular set of values (who are the comfortable? who are the afflicted? who are the privileged? the victims?) onto journalism so that specific "sides" should not be represented or given a voice, or worse (for objective truth - if not pragmatically) misrepresented. You call that just, you call that good, you might even call it true liberty, you can call it whatever you want. I'm not the one defending that. I'm attacking that as lack of objectivity in journalism since the start. So it's both, I would find any subjectivity "bad" (in journalism), but the fact it's a "bad" subjectivity IMO only makes it worse in context.

On SciFi. For an irrelevant thing there sure seems to be a lot of teeth gnashing over it wouldn't you agree? Is that just media sensationalism or perhaps a sign of a deeper unease? Maybe ideological...

"The group advocates “equity feminism,” a term first used by IWF author Christina Hoff Sommers to distinguish “traditional, classically liberal, humanistic feminism” from “gender feminism”, which she claims opposes gender roles as well as patriarchy"
Ah yes, because supporting archaic gender roles is so very feminist and definitely fair/equal.
She's a Conservative shill making money for herself and her puppet masters. Hardly a paragon of truth.
(Anders Breivik was a fan of her. Bit odd that. He didn't seem like a fan of fairness and equality.)
Then again you're probably too far gone to acknowledge the blatant bias and her involvement in an anti-science 'think tank'.

As for that other person you namedropped, I haven't heard of them but spending some time reading reveals they actively defend transphobic rhetoric.
Not much of a feminist if they're throwing other women under the proverbial bus.
Seems more like an asshole t' me.

"Essentially, the same way Gamergate is a revolt against the growing agenda politics in gaming journalism."
I thought it was about corruption and ethics and things that aren't abusing people for their gender.

I mean, I don't know about you, but the most active and outspoken SJWs I know absolutely love Star Trek.
Unfortunately Shatner is a bit of a sexist dinosaur, but oh well.
(Seriously. There was one interview in particular. Was speaking to the woman that played Janeway. They basically did the exact same thing in regards to 'Work vs Family' and he made out like it was somehow Totally Different And Also Wrong because of her gender. Yikes.)
Seriously though. Star Trek = SJWs. It's all about equality and tried to push the boundaries in difficult times.
(Nimoy was absolutely great in that regard. His support of Nichelle Nichols and George Takei, and insistence that they be included in the likes of the animated series or he would not be involved, was an excellent example of someone in a relatively privileged position using that to support others and fight inequality.)
[Takei's pretty obvious in regards to advocacy, & Nichelle too. Hell, Star Trek featured relationships between those of the same gender and even attempted to touch on the notion of gender identity.]
{Not sure how people can support Star Trek and in the same breath argue against the inclusiveness of it. Not that Star Trek is without issue, since it definitely has signs of the times. But it tried, and it reached towards what would now probably be dismissed as 'SJW bullshit'. Star Trek's pretty cool.}

The problem with all you SJW types, zealots for your own cause and willing to throw every other type of feminist or anyone who disagrees with you on any point under the bus. You all seem to know "the One Way" that is all "right".

Sommers is an equity or equality feminist who believes that lying and distorting the truth hurts the greater feminist cause. That making up bullshit about video games turning people into rapists is fear-mongering. Making up statistics that exaggerate instances of rape is wrong. All it does is promote unjust fear and suspicion toward men.

Kerzner is a sex-positive feminist journalist who is an accomplished gamer. But you somehow call her transphobic as well.

Why do all of you assholes think that your way is the only way people should think? That somehow you have the right to call everyone else names? Paint whole groups of people in a one-coloured box?

As to Star Trek, guess what? A whole lot of people like it, but now you are trying to claim it in your SJW box. SJWs are just asshole advocates who will go to any means (lying, cheating, stealing) for the promotion of their cause. They are uncaring jerks who don't care hoe far they swing the pendulum and seek stupid goals such as diversity for diversities sake regardless of merit.

Me, I support social justice, just not at the point of a gun, not by calling all white males assholes. Equal rights, not fighting some non-existent boogeyman called a patriarchy. I support what is right. Which means sometimes black men can be racist toward whites.

It means that sometimes a limerick is just a limerick. Speaking of which, my personal thought on that limerick (in terms of the dead guy) was what an idiot. Guess the guy offed himself because the woman he took home turned out to have a dick and he apparently enjoyed it too much and couldn't live with himself. Not sure how you construe that as homophobic...

ANd sorry, but you are apparently bigoted against conservatives. How does Sommers being a conservative make her wrong about everything? You are full of bullshit. Read her articles, read her books, she supplies facts, you supply hot air...