Wow. And aGG accused GG of pedophilia all this time without as much as even forging a fake connection between this ''association'' and us. Gotta give 'em credit for that. I like how the capital 'M' in their logo seems to be leaning on the little 'b'. Seriously though without going into explicit detail, the size differences wouldn't add up to any safe interaction for the boys.
Strange how in the course of a few weeks everyone seems to be accepting pedophilia now. Is this the kind of social revolution SJ wishes to bring to every field? Because I doubt all the pedo hunters are gonna retire overnight.

Well, if they succeeed I might as well reap the benefits, teenagers are legal in my country, but it is frowned, now it won't.

Hah, the rate bully is here again!

So the Leopirate, the one who basically broke the last story got suspended by mass flaggers on agg side (some boasted about it). There have been a lot of random twitter suspensions on gg side lately.

Oh and Salon just released an article basically saying "I'm a pedophile but thats not so bad"
quality journalism

Are you forgetting something?

People like to check their feelings rather than facts
People, or the internet population seems to like to go against taboos even though a lot of the taboos are there for good reason.
After a taboo is whipped enough that they get no kick continue to whipping it, they more to the next taboo.

Sure there are taboos that are unreasonable in modern times like genitals mutilation, but going after reasonable taboo is illogical.

Well, going from my own experience, as a teen the rocker/street kid culture I ran with mixed in with gays and lesbians at various hangouts and clubs. Even as a very youthful teen, I was propositioned early and often by middle aged gay men. They knew full well that me and my friends were underage. Did they care? No. If any of us had sex with them, would they have considered it child molestation? Probably only based on whether or not they had to pay us first. I can only imagine how difficult life must be for street kids who have to put up with that shit day in and day out.

People seem to forget that in our modern society, most men are sexual opportunists. That's not a knock against men. I am one. It's just part of our nature to be horny and want sexual conquests. But when traditional gay culture denies their own links to more illicit (and sometimes illegal) behavior, it shows their hypocrisy and the rise of their own twisted moral grandstanding. Gay men and women who deny that their own kind could possibly want to molest children is no different than the Catholic church's similar stance.

So yeah in general I was talking with Vain in another thread also reading Brasas's opinions I think we could invest a little more time and a little thought to make this thread much better and still discuss journalism, SJWism (I personally might start referring to them with something else, but lel for now) and personal opinions (since this is more or less the chan thread on GOG). So yeah some ideas anyone is free to not follow or otherwise :

Ethics violations : try to give a short description of what ethics violation has happened and always provide proof of it.

Rumors : disclose that the topic is a rumor and make sure not to jump to conclusions too early

Opinions : state that its your opinion, accept that it may not be correct and that someone might disagree

Debate : now, there has been little leeway in side v. side debate for sometime and I don't think people wanna come back since they will get lowreped or for fear being triggered / wrong. So from now on, WE WILL HAVE TO CREATE COUNTERPOINTS TO OUR OWN ASSERTIONS. So kindly when you post an argument, post at least one counter point against it which you can still debunk or debunk later if you have time. Basically we can't improve discussions without critique and we will have to look towards ourselves to provide that. I wanna stress that debates must be free from emotion so don't take any rebuttal personally. So if someone posts an argument, post your arguments and counter arguments in your post and reach your own conclusion. Just criticize the points someone raises and not the person themselves.

So keep posting like you did but the only new part being just try to counter the points you bring up. And finally, a disclaimer as to what this thread and GG as a whole is: it started as a movement for ethics and expanded to anti-censorship and anti-authoritarianism in gaming as a whole. So posting anything about what can and can't be in games / other mediums is welcome; IMO. So believe what you want about it but expect others to do the same. I'll post a debate topic later after I found some good points.

So a debate I'm having with myself on objectification of female characters in games. Pitch in with opinions.

1.Objectification of female characters is OK.
2.No, it promotes the same behavior towards women in real life.

3.There is no proof that treating a woman in any media as objects is related to treating women badly in real life. Moreover, the fantastical settings in games detaches people while playing further detaches connection with real life. There have been no attacks at women as a gender by people who excessively consume games or any media in general. How many listeners of rap are out harassing women? Why has there been no attack on women as a gender by Playboy readers?

I got this far. I can't go further. So can anyone debunk 3?

The problem with Vain was very simple...
He didn't come here to debate anything. The start of every conversation was that he was certain that Gamergate was about harassment and "ethics in journalism" is a cover-up. It really is the same kind of screwed up mentality of racists. For example, "Jews run the world with their money and influence and no one will truly investigate them because they will be threatened and bought off". When anyone starts classifying an entire group of people as being all the same with a singular agenda, they will always be wrong.

The fact he calls for "a final solution for Gamergaters" says enough. The guy is off his rockers.

It does illustrate something though, be careful how you classify groups of people. I remember awhile ago when this thread was taking Liana Kerzner to task over comments on Twitter in defense of Ben Kuchera. Clearly now, one sees she had her own set of ideas, she was never in the SJW camp...

On the topic of SJWs, of course they exist, I knew some of them 25 years ago before they had that name. In the movie PCU, an example are called "Causeheads". Mary Whitehouse in the 70s. Terry Rakolta in the 80's.

So what's the difference between fighting for social justice and being an SJW? Social justice advocates fight against a defined issue. They up real points. We are talking race advocates and why black men are such a high percentage of the prison population and why they get higher sentences than whites committing the same crimes. We are talking about gender advocates talking about stoning and death of women for being outspoken in certain countries.

Then you have the SJWs. These are people who see inequity everywhere. Some people can ride the fence. Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan where at times they cross the line. I remember when they (or one of them) came to protest in a nearby city because a black shoplifter died a a security guard tried to arrest him. It didn't matter that the security guard was black himself, they claimed it was the result of the white owned retailer that the black security guard acted that way. SJWs are those people claiming everyone should quit eating meat, for all variety of reasons from the pain the animals suffer to who plants are better for the world. SJWs are the ones claiming there is an invisible white Illuminati-like patriarchy controlling the world and keeping women down. They are the Mary Whitehouse's who feel their own dislikes (or tastes) should be extended to everyone else and anything they don't like must be banned or censored. And in turn that anyone who argues against them is a heathen.

Of course SJWs exist, they describe people we all know of, people who have wacky ideas on how "everyone" ought to behave or large groups of people being wrong (like all Muslims or all Gamergaters). And frankly when Vain wants to propose outright banning from the forums for anyone in support of Gamergate (for any reason), or a "final solution for Gamergaters, you have a 100% SJW.

And its rather ironic that we've had discussions about Gene Roddenberry being a SJW. It just seems they feel its okay to call themselves that and its a good thing when they use it, but anyone else, and they are using it cruelly.

All the more reason to just come up with ideas and criticize them ourselves. If anyone actually cared about the problems they say exist, they would've used their insight to reveal to the masses what the problem was or how to get rid of it. But getting people of this ideology to actually have an evidence based talk is the most difficult part. GOG was actually a good place to discuss since no one saved the world 150 characters and a few hipsters at a time.

Either way, don't let it get in the way of what discussion we can have. Obviously a one sided debate is still a one sided debate but if that is the only one that can stay on topic, its better than nothing.

I'd say the biggest problem with women in computer science is that they do not go into the field in the numbers necessary. They seem to be represented in about the same numbers in the industry as they are in pursuing the field via education. How much of this comes from parenting, expected gender roles, various myths is hard to say. It doesn't help when you hear almost everyone state things like boys are better at math and science while girls are better at English. When you hear these propagated myths so much, is it any wonder women tend to avoid math and science degrees and instead up for literature, journalism or arts degrees? But dispelling that myth would be where I would start if I were truly trying to address the gender gap in the sciences.

But I guess it easier for some people to blame "men" and/or patriarchy for the problem...

Ironic, my sister, who is younger than me, is a robotics engineer, and I am in literary studies. Even funnier is that I was expected to become an entomologyst, and she was expected to be an english teacher or a vet.

A little bit of child psychology = reverse psychology, perhaps? How close are you to your mother? Hahaha. Someone get the stress pillow. I think someone needs some primal screaming therapy followed by a big hug.

And I think that also displays the issue. Why were those the expectations in the first place? And we haven't even really addressed the issue of whether expected gender roles themselves are a necessarily bad thing. Is it so wrong that certain jobs tend to favor one sex as long as there is no real barrier to the other joining the profession?

I'm just using this more of an example, but why aren't these things part of any discussion of women as game programmers? Instead all the discussion seems to be about some illusionary wall put up by the patriarchy...