No, I haven't. Please feel free to elucidate how this applies here.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

It's worth a quick read. It's a useful response to many arguments (although I do agree here that more likely than not, correlation and causation are link).

Seriously, it's pretty obvious that the whole thing exploded due to the near simultaneous release of articles declaring "Gaming is dead". That is the spark which really lit the fire. As such, clear causation...

Ah yes, modern day feminism for you - isn't it great? No?

So if someone gets banned for something by a website, then claims its because of what they were saying (in the sense of the message/argument/whatever they were trying to get across) the assumption is that person has been censored? Its not possible (or highly likely) that they did actually break the websites terms of use? Or maybe in putting across their point of view they did so using unacceptable language or by libelling someone? Or any number of what might be considered very legitimate reasons to take that sort of action?

My take as to why it is somewhat nicer here :
- gog is about ""old games"" which repels many clueless and potentially annoying people.
- The Jupiterian amount of giveaways traps the evil meteorites away from the Earthly serious discussions. Sort of.

Many people in my country consider these SJW types to be batshit insane. :P

But it is sadly true that they have gained much influence, especially over academia, and the business world often kowtows to these types out of fear of bad publicity or costly legal defense against frivolous lawsuits. The Democratic party is more-or-less run by such nutjobs (tho to be fair, the Republican party is also run by nutjobs - neocons - but libertarians are gaining increasing influence there and making changes for the better).

I had assumed that it was a similar situation in more-or-less all developed/modern/whatever countries, but now that you ask... I'm curious about it, too.

Also, see my reply to your other post in the gamergate news thread.

Meh, nevermind. I'll edit my post later. ;)

That's what happens when you allow an SJW in a position of power.

https://twitter.com/SportzPunz/status/513602264385060864/

Your "proof" shows the popularity of the label "gamergate". Which kind of has to have been around before it gained in popularity. Adam Baldwin (possibly unjustly) prides himself with having invented the term; and he sure as hell tweeted about Zoë Quinn's sex life first and foremost.

Me too. However, that's not the series and can not be. She interprets the data from her perspective. Avoiding the tropes, that would be creative writing. Sarkeesian DID try her hand at that and... well... personally, I'm not a big fan of her ideas. They can't come into play in her videos because games are a piece of art. As a reviewer, you point out the things you consider problematic, that's your job. Beyond that, you'd be prescriptive - and the last thing Sarkeesian should suggest is that her series was prescriptive. The same is true for, say, secondary literature: you point out what you think could have been better, but you don't detail how, because that would be pretentious.

Well, the series has expanded in other parts as well, so it's not absurdly unlikely that she splits up her last topic as well. I wouldn't bet on it though. ;)

Uhhuh, and why do you think the label picked up popularity in the first place? Oh wait, lemme guess: it's because gamers are misogynists! Or was it because Zoe Quinn totally is the most hated person on the internet (more despised even than the dumbfuck who has more respect for ISIS than gamers)?

Maybe you can dig up some tweets preceeding Baldwin's to back up that assumption.

That's pure conjecture. He retweeted the two Internet Aristocrat videos, and those sure as hell do NOT primarily deal with Quinn's private escapades.

Ah, thunderfoot. I urge everyone to watch that video with a brain.

His argument basically is that the only thing twitter could have held against him were "one sided" tweets; the only person those tweets were directed against was Anita Sarkeesian, hence it is logical that Anita Sarkeesian is "directly responsible" for closing down his twitter account.

Can you follow this absurd logic?

The spelling of the word "color" in some email leads him to assume that this email could not have been sent from England, so Sarkeesian must have written it herself (!). The email spells color without a u, so Sarkeesian "badmouthes people by proxy".

Don't you think that is an extreme reach to say the least?

His next example or proof of "badmouthing people by proxy" how Sarkeesian has not responded to the Summers video directly, but has rather posted a humorous rebuttal video (which BTW makes a good point, because indeed the percentage of female core gamers is in no way a statement about the prevalence of sexism in video games).

How is this "badmouthing by proxy", seriously? And in what way is it different from his retweeting of his far more aggressive supporters?

He would then link to another song video dealing with his strawman argument that feminists would want "more female protagonists in games". The entirely ennerving video excerpt enumerates female protagonists in games.

Don't you think he misses the point completely, not for the first time?

He details the tweets and retweets he made before the account suspension. They mostly deal with the assumption and evidence that Anita did not alarm the authorities about recent death threats (proven false in the meantime; and anyone who has been around for the TvW Kickstarter video comments already knows that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't ask herself "What threats can I make up today", but rather "Which one to choose... which one to choose...").

Making and supporting clearly harrassing claims directed against a person without a solid base of evidence (and there really is none), wouldn't you think of that as grounds for a temporary twitter suspension?


Thunderfoot exemplifies wild assumptions, incredible claims, willful misinterpretation and, yes, harrassing claims. As a "spokesperson" in the gamergate debate, he is clearly making the movement look really bad.

As a critic, not reviewer. Not that I agree with how they define criticism, where intent is irrelevant and they disregard objectivity in favor of whatever subjective prisms they choose.

An example of why I disagree. You say "that's not the series and can not be". I take the it to be positive or constructive criticism. Well, hmmm, why not? It very well can be, just that's not the intent. Which is a legitimate choice, sure.

Another example. "you don't detail how, because that would be pretentious". I take the it to be, again, constructive / positive criticism. Well, hmmm, are you sure? I personally much prefer such constructive / positive criticism than the reverse, and I would argue the pretentiousness is independent of the criticism, in the realm of intent.


Actually, let me deepdive here. Do you see how you are implying an universal moral judgement in that sentence? Because you just did exactly what you say these social activist critics don't do. You basically affirmed, without exception, that positive criticism is pretentious. I don't think you actually had some malicious intent, though.

I'm not saying this is a universally invalid worldview, that it is impossible for another's differing opinion to carry oppressive intent, or prescriptive intent, or anything. In fact I am precisely arguing your opinion just expressed may carry a form of such prescriptive intent. That being that you may want to delegitimize a form of criticism, in favor of another.

So bottom line. If I criticize Anita's videos, cherry picking in exactly the same way she does to criticize videogames, etc... why is my rethorical assignement of intent to her invalid, whereas her similar assignment of intent (collective) to the creators of the media (to society) is valid? By which I mean valid a priori, objectively valid, not as something you may or may not agree with.

Please help me out, because I just don't get it. To me this looks like any oher ideological conflict in history. Group A believes X, group B believes Y. Either they tolerate each other, or they don't. If they don't, let's not whitewash what is happening; war.

Whilst I may not agree with many of them, there are people out there who can put forward well reasoned arguments in support of their stance on anti-feminism issues. Thunderf00t is not one of them. His arguments are astoundingly poorly thought out.

Damn you for making that final clause ;P.
Consider the following - this is a guy who views a video enumerating female characters as "ennerving" (Perhaps even "unnerving"). Why? Doesn't it celebrate how inclusive gaming narratives are?
To hell with that - it's posted by THE OTHER SIDE. No matter how basic and true the claims, they will still upset people who are more interested in "winning" than a search for truth. It will be even more infuriating to people who openly applaud silencing the dissenting voices...
There's a reason why Anita has disabled the comments for her videos. Her finding will NOT be "peer reviewed". No scrutiny allowed. If she got invited to a calm discussion with people willing to point out holes in her reasoning, she'd be doomed.