What? No one is preventing the sale of goods. Just use of a venue.

They had the right to use this venue, as they paid for the booth and signed a contract with the Expo to sell their stuff there. If this thing really goes to court, then the Calgary Expo has to proof that selling stuff with the Gamergate logo on it is against their rules, so they more or less have to proof that this logo stands for this misogynist, racist hate inducing group everyone is talking about.
I would love for this to happen, so that we would get a real fact-based, legal ground if Gamergate is this dangerous hate group or not.

I demand apology by sonnet!

Just kidding. It doesn’t have much to do with this thread but at some point elsewhere I’d like to see a conversation about how there are almost no barriers left between personal and professional lives on Twitter. It’s gotten really weird.

and since their slogans said "stand against censor" without any call to violence, damage, assault & battery, harassment, rape and so on....they would have a VERY weak case in stating they endangered anyone at the convention. If it came to a lawsuit, i'd say HBB holds by far the strongest cards in their hand (especially with the FBI's recent investigation not coming up with anything so far)

Eh what? The very reason Gamergate exists is because OTHERS threaten the entire industry by forcing their politics and idiologies on developers and publishers, forcing them to change or censor their games while the press is entirely unreliable and corrupt. Get your facts straight before you spew your bullshit. Gamers want developers to have creative freedom, to make the games THEY want. Let sales determine what games are allowed instead of bitchy SWJs who don't even PLAY games and find those who play games sad e.g. Anita Sarkeesian who is the biggest fraud in games media history. And the media is a large part of the problem because they're from the same left-wing circles - not to mention that many games "journalists" can hardly even be called gamers.

Sorry folks, if it's any consolation, I'll stay away from this thread for a while. I did promise him a reply and I didn't want to do it in PM, since he has kind of implied I don't have the balls to post publicly.

So Htown, let's go over the top once more, fully anticipating the result. And yet you imply I'm not brave for refusing to discuss taboo topics... :)

So, in relation to pizzerias burning and budhism. You just want to play gotcha. Why is that? Do you take every hyperbole you read literally? I'm not ashamed of what I've said, and I'm happy to admit when I made a mistake on the substance. These look like a waste of time to me, but it's your choice mate, do feel free to try and convince me these are relevant points to discuss.

You also ask me about the bible, slavery, racism. Slavery in the bible brings to mind Exodus... I guess in general I agree with you? I need only look at your argumentation style to see how anything can be interpreted to mean anything else. ;) But again, what a waste of time... Where were you going with this question? What's the point you wanted to make?

In relation to sex and marriage... well if talking about sex was as fun as the act itself this reply would have happened earlier for sure, despite my work week from hell. Anyway, back in post 2807 I said something you even quoted in the post I'm replying. (2814)

This was in reply to your:

I even left my referring to your joke up there. Kind of black and white what I was referring to, no?

Recap
You: Opposing sex should mean supporting marriage. Because fun joke. :)
Me: Marriage is somewhat related to reproduction. Because religions formalized it as such.

So. Yes. You seem to want to argue marriage, reproduction and sex are completely separate concepts. Is that because they have separate dictionary entries mate? I indeed see that as very artificial. Dictionaries are artifacts yes? The actual point being that just because you define marriage to be unrelated to reproduction does not mean it is wrong or incorrect to associate the two at some level. As for reproduction and sex it may surprise you that one is normally the result of the other ;)

So let me be clear(er). When I said religions define marriage in so and so way, and right in the next sentence described implicitly how modern reproductive techniques are what caused said definitions to become somewhat outdated, I was basically pointing to you exactly how religious marriage and human reproduction are connected. AND answering your implicit question of where I see Christian opposition to same sex marriage originating. Do I need to be more explicit even? I try not to attack you personally, but it seems so often that you are ignoring my point on purpose...

I didn't want to reply on race... but since "every right" in the other thread was not actually EVERY right, I find this other example irresistible. Here's another of your hyperboles I find ironic. You say how it is "generally accepted that one should not be permitted to discriminate based on race". Note permitted you say. Well, this will knock your socks off, something that looks a lot like racial discrimination IS actually legally permitted, mandated even.

But of course, it's a black and white thing to you right? No need to grant any legitimacy to the other side. They're all hateful bigots anyway. Sarc/

At this point I've been composing the above for 2 hours. Time to move on to the actual interesting part. That's just my subjective opinion of course. ;)

Ah shit, another thing I feel I must point your apparent hypocrisy. This does get old...

What's annoying to me is you accusing me of what you do yourself. I'll assume you're being sincere and consider it ironic.

Recap:
PS: You even answered this separately from the next question I had in the same paragraph dude!
Then me (paraphrasing): So how did exactly did those get abused?
You (paraphrasing): I didnt say that! Can't you read?

This is really tragic... I don't know what to tell you mate... I don't want to do this to you. Can't you just focus on the substance of the arguments intead of these tiring attempts at raising doubts about my motivations or reading/writing ability? Anyway, let's look at the positive side, I guess this is another opportunity for you to lead by example on how to handle mistakes.

PS: Too long, need to break in two.

Now the substance I find interesting in your post is coming. Some choice quotes.

I feel so stupid :) Of course! Instead of being forced to act they have the option of paying a fine. That's not coercive! Magically ;) The fact that presumably the money to pay the fine is money they earned working doesn't matter at all. Instead of pointing a metaphorical gun at their head so they work for us, we only rely on state power to get at the result of their work. That makes it absolutely moral and right and ethical and ... well, it's just such a huge difference.

Are you serious mate? That's your answer to my pointing how there is no coercion in refusing to serve others, and even already pointing out that we can discuss openly about tradeoffs, such that coercion might be traded for some other value? You basically disregard my reaching out and ahead, to try and imply there is no coercion? They have a choice, a choice of poison... That's... very honest of you. I mean does the smokescreen of democratic legislation and implicit police power really camouflage the underlying reality so effectively to you? Honest question there... I've been assuming your willingness to actually, you know, understand my perspectives. And I think you do, because right in the end you say it yourself "they ... can explain ... they were forced to do it ..." And you wonder why I think you might be acting disingenuous on purpose?

And then about the State... I'm smacking myself on the head. Why didn't I think of that myself? :) When folks tell me the state provides, I always reply the state is all of us, nothing else. I was soooo wrong. You seem to believe the State has an existence separate from its constituencies. And you must be right. Here I thought public infrastructure meant it belonged to all of us communally, rather than to none of us. Another huge difference I just learned. ;)

At least we agree there is no right to happinness. Otherwise I do find it incredible how different our perspectives can be. That you would consider ok that someone doing sex work (any work really), should be fined or lose some sort of professional credential, due to their refusal to work, for whatever motive... I want to understand that. The fact that is almost 100% alien to me and I consider it hugely ethically suspect means my interest in your explanations is even larger. I want to understand. Please? Where does that obligation come from? That duty to serve others that if avoided justifies coercion?

Here's a thought, which maybe can get us closer to the roots of our disagreements. What you are calling prevention of discrimination I see merely as punishment of discrimination. You aren't preventing anything. In fact I believe you will often be increasing future discrimination through these coercive tactics. They seem efficient on the near term, but they stop well short of being decisive.

Now, I am not some naive angel come to earth. Violence and coercion do resolve problems, I'll grant you that, but you seem to believe these little punitive actions actually do something positive, when it's utterly apparent to me, they are necessary evils at best. And usually only lead to escalation of hostilities. Carthago Delenda Est. Do you get my point?

And in preemption of your possible counter that I am welcoming the escalated conflict (TStael believes I'm such a jackass apparently), what I actually advocate is tolerance. True tolerance: Live and let live. Laissez faire. Accept that others will hate you, find ways (the free market, democractic capitalism, etc, etc) to coexist in peace.

Over and out. 3hr 45 in total. Now to proof and edit.

There you go, half a day dedicated to you mate... 4 hours pretty much.

After this post, I went to check out the campaign page to see what you mean exactly. The only thing I can even remotely find to them being disruptive is the first paragraph, where they are obviously being facetious. They are joking about "infiltrating" nerd culture, as you can see they claim they spent decades perfecting their persona when the group has not even been together for that long. The rest of the page is them simply wanting to share the message to let people be and create freely.

Essentially they handed out fliers that you can throw away and not care about. There has been no evidence they disrupted any panel. In the audio posted, the HBB specifically asked the panelists if they would like them to field that question. The panelists said "sure, go for it." Additionally, one of the members who was kicked out was an artist, comic book writer, and cosplayer. Shouldn't she get a chance to show her creativity?

Why, to you, do these people deserve to be banned? So far, they have done nothing wrong but have beliefs that do not align with the radical feminist narrative. If you even check their manifesto, what is the problem? That they support freedom of expression or that they are concerned with legitimate issues regarding men that the world loves to ignore (high suicide rate, veterans, homelessness)?

I only know this group in passing, but I have yet to see anything horribly offensive from them. I will not support censorship against anyone, regardless of whether their views align with mine or not. The only way we will grow as a society is to share ideas, not throw out the people who we do not like.

Attacking anyone is not really a good route to take, but people do have a right to voice their displeasure. I feel it shows a level of ignorance when someone compares a cultural movement to hate groups that have done extremely horrific things to people. The KKK and ISIS are groups that have hung people, burned people, dragged people to death, and thrown them off tall buildings just to name a few. Are we seriously going to compare these horrific events and their victims to what has essentially been little more than a war of words on Twitter? Are we going to compare "victims" of Twitter harassment to those that have been tortured, mutilated, and burned?

For me, it is about getting some damn perspective. People do not have to like each other or the message they carry, but learn the difference between getting feelings hurt on Twitter and being killed for simply existing.

Hahahah. Oops! ;)

ROFL!

Yes that Mr. Biscuit fellow seems alright doesn't he? The fact that a man who barely leaves his house and talks to anyone and keeps most of his private life private can still be called a misogynist is absurd. No proof required. I see why though; he's oppressing you with proof. And proof is something a strong independent whatever needs to be liberated from; right?

On the Honey Badger issue, this seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymkIiGRvtBg
The relevant part starts at 18.30.


Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdTVMiD0UI

Could someone remind me again how it's GamerGate driving women out of games, comics, and conventions? I keep forgetting...

GO HOME GAMER GIRL -Calgary Expo

Slavery is freedom
Hate is love
Exclusion is inclusion