Babark, don't take this as an attack, it's YOU, not US...

You aren't listening, as demonstrated by the following facts (objectivity, huzzah!):
Characterization on attacks on Zoe and Anita, when we didn't.
Straw man about media being 'created in a void' which no one said.
Strawman about red and communism... including an implication of daftness :)

Why don't you just tell us what you really think of us huh? Like Kasper you are transparent enough... (he's more honest though, and gained respect from that)

You see, your refusal to actually listen to the other side, and your refusal to actually volunteer to go where you haven't gone before, into what you 'haven't considered' is why we go around in loops.

Here's another attempt at going around and getting you to engage the actual point:
In the same Clockwork Orange wiki you posted, did you read the sections on themes? Does that ring a bell to what I have posted so far? Or is it too much 'wall of text'?

A perfect example of the superficial critique (violence, rape, sexism...) completely missing the point. See why I chose Clockwork Orange as example now?

So you see, the controversy was both about violence, because one side focused on that (and screamed louder, in a great example of might makes right), and on censorship of an artistic expression about conditioning behavior (and morality more in general, but whatever), because that's objectively what the work is about, and it was censored.

Kinda like another controversy which one side frames as about gender violence, helped by their privileged positions as gatekeepers for media, whereas the other side insists the ethics of the folks screaming about gender violence are suspect cause of the methods they are using. Surprise!

In summary, it's both. Reality is not black or white, and most folks in the GG side are happy to denounce gender violence, or threats of violence, you just don't care about admitting we are not cartoon villains. You also don't care about denouncing any ethical fault on your side.

So you see. It's you, not us. Sorry mate...

Eh, that's kind of offensive. If there's one thing I've learned from arguing on the internet, it's that whoever you're disagreeing with in one argument is inevitably on your side for the next, so it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt and try not to assume the worst or burn bridges. Is there some kind of online law to that effect? There really should be.

And it makes me sad that Liz (who wrote that blog post and is fairly prominent in this whole thing) thinks OoT is better than Majora's Mask. Not the point, I know, but... come on. Majora's Mask is incredible.

Lady. We've won everywhere but Dumbass Central mancave hugboxes. Don't fight in Dumbass Central. Play games.

OOT is a better game in general, plots work better, and the game mechanics are more polished. Majora's Mask has far more SOUL in my opinion, but as a game works slightly worse.

So I can understand that someone says that OOT is a better game, but still be in love with Majora's Mask, that is also my favourite Zelda game.

But saying that OOT is racist and sexist is just being brainless. It demonstrates that some people criticize games without even play them, twisting arguments for an audience that also didn't play that games. Sarkesian recognized years ago in some of her videos, (previous to her actual videos), "I am not interested in video-games" , she is just throwing a bait to an easy to get angry mob, and some assholes ate the bait.

Us? Who is us? All I see is you...

There's that "us" again. Who exactly do you think is "us"?
Do you want me to tell you what I think of you? Seems a pointless exercise in egoism, with little good to come of it, but since we're being so honest here...
You straight out said a while back that you don't believe in the existence of absolute morals. That's all fine and dandy, I can understand that viewpoint, as many share it. However, even within that argument, there IS the existence of current morals, cultural morals, whatever you want to call it.
Either way, as I mentioned it before, I consider it objectively immoral to ostracise/dismiss/denigrate a group of people based on gender or ethnicity... for you it seems to be a much more grey area.
You have some major problem with critiques that point out social issues that game has, and you say they should be "more objective". I have no issue with such critiques.
Do we have anything to discuss? Will we constantly be going around in circles on these points when they've already been demarcated? If so, then yes, I'm going to get "bored" of the conversation. I've heard the "other side" (being you), and there doesn't seem like you have anything more to add.

Yes, this is a perfect example. Do you even HAVE an actual point here? You brought up A Clockwork Orange with regards to my question about educating people. Your response was "it shouldn't be like clockwork orange, wink wink. Oh, and those darned feminists, I bet they complained about the rape scene there as well".
When I pointed out that criticism of the sexual violence in The Clockwork Orange was in no way restricted to (or even majorly composed of) feminist critiques, you responded with "Oh, you probably weren't alive back in the 70s, back then the controversy had much more to do with the themes of indoctrination and brainwashing".
I'm sorry, I can find no controversy surrounding the film regarding indoctrination and brainwashing. I find the Catholic Church condemned it for explicit sex and violence, I find it was initially rated X in the US due to the same, I find instances of UK courts claiming a number of murders and rapes were inspired by the movie, making it very difficult to have watched in the UK for many years. I suppose you can call that "controversy about censorship", but the movie's themes of indoctrination and conditioning behaviour played absolutely no part in that censorship.
So what are you on about? Was the whole point about the critique of the rape just a side-point you felt like slipping in? If it is irrelevant, why mention it at all?

So "we" and "us" is GG people? I thought you didn't care about GG. I didn't call anyone a cartoon villain, and I don't care about sides. If I have an ethical fault, I'll correct it.

See, now again I'm getting bored. The discussion went from general points to specifically addressing my perceived faults, and me responding to that. Does it strike you so odd that I really don't care to participate in such a conversation seeing how it is so totally irrelevant to everything?

You don't want to go deep into specifics, you don't want to go broad into generalizations... :)

I'm going to do what I hate doing and dissect, but whatever, maybe we will leave it at that since you seem to like it (you do it often). Hope you enjoy this... /Sarc

I'm not the only one replying to you and making similar points. See posts 25, 27, 33, 42, 44 I think 32 and 35 are also clearly intended for you as well. That's at least 4 more individuals than me... so I stopped at 44. I see at least two more folks jumping in after... (whoa... facts, objectivity... what a mindfuck)

I am more of a moralist (idealist is more correct term) than you dude, not less. Apart from gender or ethnicity I also think it is wrong to ostracize or denigrate based on opinions. But I avoid moralizing, because tolerance remember? I mentioned it some times.
As for dismissing, I'm not so sure. And yes, morals are very subjective, so I know that my position, like yours, is not a moral absolute, and cannot be justified rationally. It ultimately requires an assertion from ethical belief. Which is why I try not to act as if I am the owner of some absolute truth that all should follow. (whoa... moral humility... what a novelty)

The problem I have (major? really?) is what you said: that the critiques are not objective. Therefore they prove nothing. Therefore they create no moral imperative. I have no problem with it being bullshit. I do have a problem with being told to swallow said bulshit. And say it's yummy. And ask for seconds. And thank you for giving it to me.

When you refuse or are unable to follow along, no wonder you get bored. As you see from the above, my positions are much less black and white than you think.

I have several points, but you refuse, or are unable to engage them. So you're right, I don't think we will discuss them. Because you can't or won't. Which is perfectly ok. (whoa... I dont need your agreement and validation, I am actually interested in understanding in detail why you think or believe differently than I do, but won't force you... curiosity about diversity... what a mindfuck)
Here's some points, in no particular order:
1 - Critique should be objective.
2 - feminism is not a moral absolute
3 - political coercion in the name of feminism, or any other ism is wrong
4 - tolerance of different opinions is better than censorship, or shaming, or bullying
5 - tolerance is only meanigful for opinions you disagree with. You don't actually tolerate something you already approve of.

But let's stick to this thread, where the first and main point is:
You started by denigrating a group, based on false facts. Just because "we" have diverse gender and ethnicities, that's not right.
Then the second point is that no, diversity is not some absolute moral good, and neither is education, which leads us to...

1 - An example of censorship of media coming from "moral crusaders".
2 - An example of "education" done bad, which is what you had asked about. Remember?
3 - An example that one man's violence is another's art, or education, or moral good.


The point here, which you clearly missed, nd I dmit to not having made very clearly, is that the folks censoring the violence, missed the point that the violence was present on purpose as part of a broader message on conditioning, etc... therefore, the controversy about violence is also a controversy about those deeper themes. Of course, I'm not saying that all the people opposed to the violence were aware of that, in fact I just said myself they missed it, or rather dismissed it (I'm sure without googling, the folks arguing againts the censorship made such points about the context, or the intent - prove me wrong if you want and can).
Anyway I don't consider that dismissal wrong, as they can focus on whatever, the censorship I see as wrong in itself.

It's not irrelevant. It's just subtler than you'd like maybe. You brought up education, and that movie came to my mind as example of how education can be morally bad. That's the bloody central theme of the whole thing. What can change the nature of a man? Lodovico's method or whatever the heck it was called... or wait, did it actually change his nature?
(whoa... another irrelevant tangent, this time about Planescape Torment... because the protagonist in Clockwork Ornage has no similarities to the one one in PS:T... no siree. Especially considering the final book chapter, with it's redemption arc being obvious. And could it be because we are in a gaming forum, I just used a rethorical device to get my audience's sympathy and make my arguments stronger through signaling of belonging to the group? whoa... what a mindfuck, I adjust my language to my audience... now that's a trick Anita could learn to become a much better political activist)
Whatever... It's what you educate on and how you educate, not education intrinsically that can be good, bad or neutral.
The only tangent, was that I recalled how the sexual violence in the film was controversial, which was very apropos the whole "feminist censorship" context. You do agree that is part of the context? Maybe you think we are wrong to call anything "feminisist censorship". Yet I'd assume you don't deny "we" do call it that, and therefore the parallel is logical from our perspective, yes? Or do you think you define the topic, as the owner of the obvious moral truth, oh mighty Babark who art wherever?
Lastly, I'm fairly sure I recall reading feminist critiques of Kubrick, not that I'm going to go search for them now, as you're the one making some huge deal out of it.

I care about parts of it, (nuance again! the parts are not the whole, whoa... what a mindfuck).
I care about many other things much more than it. (whoa... it's not a freaking zero sum exclusionary game... I can be a feminist and a gamergater and an asshole and .... what a mindfuck)
If such a thing exists, you can consider me more of an anti-antiGG, then a GG. Is that a nice enough box for you to put me in? Or maybe you insist on keeping me in that "misogynist douche" box you have for me. You do don't you? I think at this point I'd be disappointed if you didn't :(
By the way, I found your link to the Rationalist wiki interesting. I'll PM you some links and would be interested in what you think. Of the folks I have curiosity about diversity you are probably the most interesting. Though you sure like to bring flamethrowers to fist fights...

to me she looks like she's using feminism as a means to to get what she wants and if it takes her killing women (that pretty much no one else even touches) then so be it.

Clockwork Orange, a total masterpiece on cinema, would be blamed nowadays for the rape scene, I am completely sure of it.

We are living times were SJW fight "fiction things" comfortable sited in their houses, meanwhile the new "Orators of Justice" make money with videos and doing speeches on TED. Aka Sarkesian.

Zoe Quinn got seriously harrassed. She got hreatened with murder. GGers made Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu the centers of a massive campaign of abuse. That hasn't stopped, and even if it had it's essential context that only happened a few weeks ago. Do you seriously expect people to not report on it?

At this point, anyone who wants to have a serious conversation about gaming journalism needs to drop the Gamergate tag. Not doing so is legitimizing trolls and haters.

Why don't the ethics-in-journalism people stop using the tag? Because they're afraid that no one will care without the controversy and Google ranking that #Gamergate brings. They're riding the coattails of the dregs of humanity to get their pet issue 15 minutes of fame.

Honestly, I'm disgusted with the 'ethics' people as much as the 4chan crowd. If they really cared about journalistic ethics, they'd distance themselves from the people running smear campaigns and using illegal harrassment. That's not happening, and it says worlds about how much they really care about 'ethics'.

Zoe Quinn did nothing really wrong - (that doesn't happen almost every day and in both genders, I mean, using your "friends" and relatives to push your work, if sex is involved, I don't f... care... is the same s... that a friend push another friend to a job, without consider if he is good or not for the Job. Of course people have all the right to criticize this, but not through sexism or "f" accusations) - nothing wrong beyond launch one of the most ridiculous, opportunistic and horrible indie games EVER.

It was her stupid ex-boyfriend who ignited this flame, crying and begging for "justice to the internet", if he was dating a sociopath failed girl it is not our business, and even if she is a bad person, she didn't deserve a shameful "online campaign" of hate vs her just for this.

This was first. Later the "Asperger hormonated syndrome Knights of Darkness" started their own witch hunting on anti-gamers at the exactly same time the "White Knights of Justice" entered the Battlefield blaming almost every man for being a "gamer" with the most ridiculous online articles I ever read in my life as a Gamer. Prey birds as Sarkesian or Brianna Wu with her also crappy game, move their wings fast to come to the feast, meanwhile some few rational people started to claim to a "calm down" in the GG side, was definitively too late...

Then when the GG seems to be taking the worst part of the "stupid internet war" , SWJ decided that because all women of course, need to be with them, because they are women... not people with "ideas", started a ridiculous argument that all this "girls" that support GG need to be fake accounts, and of course fake women... SJW lose this time and covered themselves in "glory" ...

A nice HighSchool drama, full of BS... "Strong" women that hate "Damsels in Distress" games, become themselves Damsels in Distress victims calling the police and fleeing for their homes in "Panic", stupid acne guys using rape words on twitter freely, and emailing with fake accounts thinking their short ... p... can travel along the broadband, assholes doxing in both sides, Media seeing clicks and polemics to gain audience... Ultra Conservative people like Baldwin making things even worse... opportunistic bad developers doing PR...

GOOD WORK, nice!

Wu's harassment has been proven to be at least partially the work of an Anonymous member, the GNAA has claimed responsibility for some of the harassment against Zoe, and Anita's harassment is proven to have been at least partially the work of a Brazilian games journalist.

Even if those things weren't true, though, you only have three targets of harassment. If each side were to whip out their oppression e-peens and measure, I guarantee you that GG has received more harassment and threats overall. Jayd3fox, GGfeminist, Boogie (and his wife), polar roller, and even Milo and KingofPol, douchebags though they are, were threatened. That's just off the top of my head—there's a hell of a lot more. Let's not play the "this is all about harassment" card when your side is the one with a near-monopoly on harassment.

Or maybe because it would make no difference. You people forget this, but the controversy started with the #quinnspiracy tag. Those people moved to GG and were even drowned out by newcomers with no hand in any of what came before (hi), and yet your accusations followed. Why would it be any different if everyone were to stop using the tag and move to something else? It wouldn't.

As usual, a fact is conveniently left out. Though I can't claim much personal knowledge. The discussion about Zoe and ethics (it's both!) was pushed to 4chan (and YouTube) by hugely heavy handed moderation, yet now the side that prevented the discussion from happening in more legitimate places is more than happy to point at that as a sign that GG is fringe and beyond the pale.

Heck, I followed the topic from the start. I think the link to Eron's post was here in GOG very fast in the original thread that didn't have ZQ on the title, which made it hard to find, hence the lovebat's thread. And after at least a few more, here we have another one. And TStael in his/hers unique style is a perfect example of refusing to even admit there may be valid reasons to talk about Zoe. Who made her taboo, pray tell?

As usual most in GOG couldn't give a fuck about more political or ideological aspects, there was a lot of back and forth about privacy breach, DMCA take down, etc... I made my mind about Zoe being in need of help, and was curious how the SJW communities were taking it, since by her own standards Zoe is a rapist. Do you remember that little nuance?

Anyway, I was amazed that the Escapist was the only other place I could find a discussion.
I was not amazed about the circling of the wagons and refusal to actually engage the ethically valid and sincere points. Par for the course in this kulturkampf.

I only hope behind the scenes someone that cares for Zoe is clear eyed about her obvious responsibility (not about GG, about the failure of her relationship) and is trying to help. Eron, reportedly does have support from friends and I assume family. Unfortunately, I don't think Zoe is actually capable of building such caring relationships. I'll be happy to be wrong, though I fear all this is only fucking her up even more.

Well, I know enough... but for those with stronger voyeuristic urges, I'm sure her bio is only a matter of time til publishing. I give it 5 years tops.

Man, who cares about Zoe passions and the poor ex-boyfriend story and who has friends or relatives that love them or not, is who is definitively not giving a good name to the GG thing... SERIOUSLY, WHO CARES ABOUT THIS TEENAGER HIGH SCHOOL FAILED LOVE STORY

Maybe you have to define "to care"... The OP and the poster I replied to seem to care...
You seem to care about not caring about it... is anything I posted embarrassing you? 0.o