Brasas: Fever,
I wanted to help you get your point about harassment across, in language that would be understood in here. So knock off on biting the hand that feeds you ok? It's not like I can actually harm you over the freaking LAN line...
Assume less, and question more ok? I think it'll do you good, because you clearly have some trouble getting my points: from thinking I wanted to debate you over harassment, to seeing censorship and shock where there was none expressed.
Anyway, since you're clearly rejecting the extended hand, I'll send a couple of broadsides and go back to lurking the thread.
On misogynistic target selection: How many men and how many women have entries in the deepfreeze site? Objectivity! :)
How many individuals of each gender over say 5 entries? 7 in total, split 3 to 4...
How about the top 3? Split 2 to 1...
The great thing about objectivity Fever. It practically speaks for itself. ;)
On the bogus war on lack of ethics: Because the lack of ethics in question are due to SJW ideology, the targets are mostly SJW demagogues, and the SJW communities obviously jump to their defense. How you can see that as being somehow a proof of GG perfidity is pure begging of the question.
What is in dispute is precisely whether or not the SJW demagogues are or not ethical. The politics have been hidden in plain sight all along. Because it's a specific political consituency that thinks there is nothing wrong with rejecting objectivity in the name of achieving social justice. The ends justify the subservise means: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
On semantics: Intolerance is just. Ethics are hateful. And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Just semantics right? You don't care about those, because there's only one truth; the SJW truth and all other meanings are wrong and perverse by definition. Don't ask whose definition, authority just is... why question it?
Sorry if you think I was being snappy, if you genuinely thought (or still do think) that I was trying to make a point about harassment, I wasn't I was making a point about the inherent fallacies in your supposed crusade for ethics in journalism, nothing more, I've been thought it twice now so I won't repeat myself a third time
On misogynistic target selection: I didn't even SAY "misogynistic target selection" I said "your war on ethics (or lack there of) always targets people that SJWs are GOING to retaliate over" that's no where near the same thing!
And even if I WAS limiting myself to misogyny giving numbers of men and women on the list is just laughable, what about this guy:
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=arthur_gies Unless they're not got all their little badges up yet he's literally ONLY on the list for
"Famously gave a much-lower than average score to Bayonetta 2, due to its “blantant over-sexualization”, with the apparent intent of generating hits through outrage."
If the man was genuinely disgusted by the sexy lady character then it is not unethical for him to state that in a review, the "apparent intent of generating hits" is just inference, as you can tell by the use of the word 'apparent'
If anything it seems like he's being singled out for thinking differently, expressing an opinion and giving a score that's not in line with what everyone else is doing "OMG you can't give a low score - think of the affect on teh METASCORE!!!" - how is this even on a site that supposedly shames a lack of ethics?
But then there's people like
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=chris_priestman Who: "Wrote about indie developer Terry Cavenagh in at least four articles while being financially supported by him on Patreon."
I'm not saying that, that isn't a conflict of interests I'm saying that its ALWAYS "indie developer", you never examine journos when they get too close to AAA and write suspiciously glowing reviews after attending boozy industry launch junkets, for example - show me an example of that sort of thing on there, please!
Blatant anti-women, anti-indie, anti-artgame, proAAA, pro-punching down on the little guy, Pro sucking Satan's cock agenda
Hit me William
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovc-O_z4daQ For I miss you so!
On semantics: I said 'semantics' because of that weird part where you asked me to choose between the dictionary and legal definitions of harassment - that had my spidey senses tingling like a mofo, sorry if that was just paranoia on my part though
"Intolerance is just" - I'm not saying that there isn't intolerance on both sides, I'm not saying that 'white knights' don't sometimes stray over the line into full-on 'Ultra PC thought-police paladin zealot' territory sometimes but still J'accuse GG of being intolerant to all the things I listed GG being 'anti' earlier
"Ethics are hateful" there's no reason NOT to crusade for ethics but to use a supposed ethical crusade to obfuscate the agenda I already mentioned is just about the most unethical thing imaginable!
And on authority again, how does Satan's man meat taste anyway? Spicy?
Peace-out dawgs, keep it real, same bat-time same bat-channel etc. etc.