I heard a number of antis were asked but declined.

also about anita, remember Milo offered to donate 5000$(later10000$) to a charity of their choice if she debated him at E3

...apart from the fact that you can clearly read that the heading for the bottom half is about 'kids fashions'...
I cry pointless, name calling, paint-fume huffing meta-commentary!
:P

Here in the USA, there's actual legislation in place against that very thing, so if say, a child walks into a Gamestop and asks for a copy of GTA V, the clerk has to legally decline. I'm not sure how that works in Australia, but here, if a clerk is caught selling M rated and up games to someone not of age, I believe the store is fined heavily.

Because striving for a society that is fair and just is clearly evil...

Have a readie hea pwease : http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/05/20/discrimination-as-a-favor-to-help-your-social-group/70093.html
Trigger warning: science(psychology)
Discussing who is guilty or not in a social media environment where any arguments that go against the grain (yah shaving jokes; cus I'm a mishogynist) are frowned upon will only lead to mass groupthink driven hysteria and end in mob lynching. If the current judicial systems run by people with law degrees and conducted in trials in which both sides present evidence and argue are just coping with the crimes, how can a group of cultist professional twats do anything better? I'm asking this seriously. Do you really believe social justice is anything but a group of vengeful control freaks trying force their opinions?

It's an ironic title, like calling a 300-pound biker "Tiny."

There's nothing fair or just about modern-day social justice. You have manufactured outrage over stupid things like Shirtgate and the Pillars of Eternity poem, cries of harassment over ridiculous things (like when David Pakman apologized to Quinn on Twitter, only to be accused of harassing her by apologizing—this actually happened), outright cultish behavior where the ends always justify the means (harassing and getting the notyourshield creator fired, openly advocating doxxing, and outright lying about things like John Walker's "thousands" of harassing tweets that were proven to have never occurred), and a culture where even talking with those you disagree with is considered a no-no (Wu getting piled on for having coffee with Brad Wardell).

I've never met anyone in GG apart from the most fringe trolls who had any problem with the idea of a fairer society. In fact, it could be argued that the key difference between us and them is that we don't think that knocking some people down and guilt-tripping them into submission is a reasonable way to achieve equality.

OMG master MacIntosh decoded : http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/02/24/prejudice-may-stem-from-low-self-esteem/23839.html

You said it was the 'Cry of social justice'
That doesn't necessarily imply affiliation with any cult-like groups, I mean it MUST be possible to strive for a fair and just society in a fair and just way, fully independently if necessary...
Not that I'm making any person claims...

Neither am I. But social justice in its current state is impossible to serve the needs of ALL citizens of EQUALLY. You have seen as well as anyone else that tumbler activists and SJWs on twitter absolutely propagate an us vs them mentality where the individual has to choose between losing prestige by arguing the truth or staying quiet, not doing so. This is self censorship; which in itself is a symptom of groupthink. Even more is the denial of facts and push of the manufactured facts. How many people know that Sarkeesian isn't involved in #GG? She is not prominent but is always invoked in discussions. This is because the community discourages facts in favor of being compliant.
Your vision of social justice, which is something like participatory democracy may exist somewhere, but not here today on the internet.

I simply believe in having an accurate discussion. Second, you really misunderstand what you're reading. The apa isn't reviewing their statement because of that research paper. If you read the APAs letter it was clearly stated that they would only consider research on or before a date in 2013. The paper you claim triggered this review was published in 2014. That study is not ground breaking research. Its mostly a meta study of the type that the author himself pans in his letter to the APA.

Up until the lancet retracted the autism/vaccine article, people quoted it and quoted it and quoted it. That's the problem with taking single studies as authoritative.

Someone in the field has several years of training in statistical methods and experiment design. They are required to read a paper a week for a seminar usually. In the case of the article published in the journal of communications, do you understand the statistical methodology used? Are you familiar with the studies he cites, whether there has been additional research done on them, or they have been reproduced? If your not an expert in the field, a shortcut to this is to trust the journal's reviewers.

It has nothing to do with how smart you are, it has to do with lacking the training to fully understand the nuances of a specific study. These papers are not written for people on an internet message board, there written for an audience with very specific training.

It's kind of like taking a verse or book of the bible out of context by laiety. Doubtful he is talking about other researchers here. It doesn't matter. The study was not designed to show what you are using it to show. You're also now ignoring the second study you posted, which showed a link - and you haven't even addressed the research you link that shows gamers are emotionally stunted. That was pretty funny finding that link in your bbc article, I got a really good laugh out of that.

So get over yourself, you do not know more than 99.7% of the APA because you read two studies. Actually it was four studies, but your forgetting about two because you got tricked by a misleading headline. Even if the previous research was flawed, it simply means we're back to not knowing - which is where I said we were.

I'm far from an SJW. I'm a christian moralist. The decline of christian values in our culture is disgusting, and repugnant. I don't however think violent video games should be censored or anything of the sort. I do believe that retailers and parents should be held responsible for ensuring minors are consuming age appropriate media. Further, I believe that peggi should hand down more adult ratings.

Having outed myself as the demon of both sides of GG and AGG, has anyone on either side put together a list of the goals or aims of their movement that are viewed as authoritative? It seems like its moved beyond being about games journalism to a large degree.

You have still not proven a casual link to violence from video games, because such has not been proven at all.
People are just supposed to take YOUR word on it.
Are you claiming that all these researchers who claim there has been no conclusive proof are wrong?
And what qualifies YOU to make that determination?

You claim there are no long-term studies, but you are wrong. You just want to throw out any study which you don't agree with. Studies have been done which track video game usage with violent crime and they are finding no correlation. Studies have tracked spikes in usage finding no spikes and general long-term trends. In fact, violent crime in the US has dropped precipitously since about the start of the video game generation.

And let's not go into funding and potential political motivations in this process. How studies are funded to find results, and those who continue to find results get the funding for the next.

So far you have shown in these conversations an inability to read a dictionary but now you claim to be some super-scientist. Your claims are just silly that boycotters "have no power" thus can't be a cause for censorship. Everyone can see what happens when the media picks up on it. They clearly have power then. Why do they do it, if they have no power to change anything?


The goals of Gamergate are simple.
1) Fair reporting in the media. (Fact-check and objective reporting).

This breaks down into many things...
Don't cry "misogyny" and "patriarchy" at the drop of a hat.
Don't report on a love interest or roommate's games.
Don't click-bait.
Be honest and objective.
Get actual facts.

Essentially, leave gaming alone if you are not going to be honest and objective about it...

Follow journalistic ethics. Mainly related to disclosing conflict of interest, and any financial transaction that took place, as well as not click-baiting, and not hiding facts.

No, we know the top part of the bottom section has boys fashions. We only see the title. Why is the rest cut off in the picture? Maybe because it does not go with the made up narrative that GTA V was marketed to children?

How many children do you know that read the newspaper cover to cover anyway? Clearly the target audience, huh?