Yep, idiots like this will cause VR to be heavily regulated. If more idiots come up with stupid crap like this we will see retarded laws put in place on VR gaming.

VR is not ready yet we skipped over a whole step in the evolution. we are trying to walk before we crawl I am currently working on that missing step right now and I should be done in about a year or 2.

We knew we could count on you, Piccolo!

When you say idiot, are you referring to the author, or the virtual groper BigBro442?

All that's needed is the ability to block and report a user for harassing conduct. Repeat offenders can have their game footage reviewed and be suspended/banned. Easy.

She was playing a multiplayer game on the Internet with a stranger. As always, the online experience cannot be guaranteed safe (that's what those disclaimers say in every online game before you get to play). You've agreed to that by playing. It will be up to each individual gamer and vendor to manage blocking communication between users who violate terms of use. In extreme cases where the harassment takes on an exceptional form perhaps the police would be involved by the vendor. That's all it is.

Any woman that "feels" violated is choosing to play the game and opening themselves up to uncertain interactions with strangers. If they don't want to experience that then they should be playing single player games or playing LAN games with friends, or online games with private rooms. Or moderators should be responsible for keeping certain rooms "safe". It should have no impact on the rest of us.

How you "feel" doesn't weigh in on the severity of somebody's actions. Their actions are either legal or illegal. In general, a sexual harassment claim could be made, but it's all for nothing. What they're trying to do is label people violent predators for somewhat natural behavior. The solution is to stop whining and leave. Or else seek out reasonable solutions to the problem. Making extremist claims and demanding the entire technology be regulated is absurd, misses the point, and accomplishes nothing.

I think bam said all there needs to be said about this issue.

The author. What she described wasn't sexual harassment, rather it was sexual assault. Problem is the avatar wasn't her. It wasn't real. If women start claiming incidents of sexual assault in VR, we will have a new breed of legislation being pushed by politicians.

Look at the whole GamerGate issue. In 2 years I have not seen one single piece of evidence of the claims against them outside of "This alleged victim says it is true". Media claims Wu and Quinn left their homes yet there was zero evidence of that being true. Some even used Quinn's own Twitter timeline against her by showing she bragged about going to Europe around the exact time she alleged she was chased from her home. Others even pointed out that in a video with Wu at her office during a dev video and the interviews she did where she was allegedly away from her home had identical furniture and other similarities. Yet, with no evidence politicians like Katherine Clark have spear-headed trying to get something done to make gaming more inclusive. Here is a former anti-GG person who went neutral after being tired of attacking his audience, apologized for his past actions, and then broke his silence to tell what GG is.

After seeing two years of lies about GG, I question the validity of the author's claims in that article. Just a new claim to paint gamers negatively.

Like the RollingStones magazine an the UVA Rape story, GamerGate and stories like this are being used to crucify gamers. I'm just curious what politicians will jump on this story and start calling for legislation be put in place. If Hillary wins, with her history of wanting legislation to fine retailers for parents buying their kids violent games, what kind of crazy legislation will she call for as POTUS? Which countries would follow suit? Gamers own personal Pandora's Box.

An avatar is a virtual extension of you. What people do to the avatar, they are in effect doing to you. That is how the author sees it, and I'm not surprised you don't. What happened was a violation of her person, whether it was 'real' or not.

Alright, next time I play a VR FPS and get shot I'll demand that user be charged with attempted murder. The avatar is an extension of me so he was trying to kill me. Then I'll run to my local politician and plead for them to make legislation.

I relate this to being trolled in GTA: Online. I'd swear people have aimbots and the like and they'll drive by and instakill you and then just keep killing you as you respawn nearby. They'll do it until you quit. Is it fair? No. Does it feel good? No, obviously you feel powerless. Is it criminal? Of course not. They're not actually hurting you. You are free to leave. It certainly hurts the experience for everyone, but there's only so much that Rockstar can do to prevent it. After they've made their best efforts there's nothing left. If players want to be anti-social they're going to be. For the most part, you can still have fun and avoid them. Worst case, you can always press the power button and turn it off.

I'd say the same is true of this VR harassment. It's certainly wrong, on some level, but it's a gray area. It isn't actually violating her "person". It's violating her mind, at worst. But again, she is free to turn it off. Human interaction is a very complicated process. There's a lot of body language involved. Often, words contradict actions. This is obviously exacerbated with video games, even VR, because not all body language is transmitted. Even when you have the full message the message isn't always clear. Odds are this guy figured if she didn't like it she would leave. Which I think is pretty reasonable. Presumably the game didn't force her to play with him. It sounds like she endured the "assault" for several games before quitting. It must not have affected her very much if it took that long to quit. Her husband was there laughing about it. Obviously, she is making something out of nothing. I'm quite sure a normal husband would not tolerate his wife being "assaulted" and laugh about it.

Even though Specter takes this Gamergate stuff too seriously, it does more or less sound like the same thing all over again. More social justice warriors making something out of nothing to attract attention and gain power over others.

Get hysterical much? Obviously in a FPS people are going to try to kill you. That's part of the point(less) game you're playing. If people threaten to murder you and harass you, obviously that's not part of the game. Virtually groping someone is not part of the game. It's not called Grope us please. No changes need to be made to existing laws to govern harassment, which is what he was doing, harassing her. It obviously made her feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, which is not part of the game.

You're blaming the victim for the actions of the perpetrator. Of course she is free to turn it off, but why should she be forced to leave? He is the one causing her problems, he should be the one to leave. His reasons for doing it don't matter at all, what matters is that he was intentionally causing her discomfort, which is HIS fault, not HERS. Get that through your thick head.

You kids have no idea what civility is anymore. Give you guys an avatar and then anything goes. That's not the way it should work. People should be held responsible for their actions, whether it's in VR, an online world or something else.

You're right, I'm being hysterical. I should be laughing at the article for the fact they can't even get the right law being broke. Groping someone is sexual assault, not sexual harassment. The law doesn't recognize virtual groping as illegal because there is no physical contact. I'm sure morons will call for the law to include VR spaces. If that happens, how long do you think it will be before games as a whole are clumped into it because of them being virtual worlds?

Since you like the angle of "it's not part of the game" I will change the game and still use my previous argument. QuiVR, the game she alleges she was groped in, is about killing waves of monsters, not the players. So, according to you, if I play QuiVR and another person starts shooting arrows at me, I can charge them with attempted murder because the avatar (a floating helmet, bow, and hand) is an extension of me and it's not part of the game.

I understand civility. What I don't understand are over sensitive idiots claiming everyone is racist, sexist, misogynist, harassing them based off words and difference of opinions. Her claiming sexual assault due to a VR encounter is as laughable as another person claiming attempted murder because they shot the arrow toward them instead of the monsters.

The argument you gave is also why the UN Women and other groups are demanding game devs change their games. According to them the characters we play are extensions of us in the fictional world. Though, the UN countered themselves when they named Wonder Woman ambassador and other UN staff stated she wasn't real so she couldn't be a good role model for women. We have hit a point in history where it is either all in or all out. VR is opening the same old debate and if it gains ground all games will be pulled into the shitstorm again with the same old points being debated. If they deem VR to be the same as doing the actions to our physical selves then they will revisit the claims of avatars being raped in modded servers of GTAV Online on the PC. This is the games industry Pandora's Box waiting to open.

Like bambams, I'm addicted to anti-feminist rants on YouTube, so given half a chance, I would call out any unreasonable behaviour.

I have to say I can understand this woman's sentiments completely. I don't doubt that it was a bad experience and there's fundamentally no issue with her writing about it. The only part that raised warning signs for me was the use of the word "misogyny". Sexual assault, perhaps, but someone who does that is not misogynist - quite the opposite. "Misogyny" is a current hot-button word and this tells me that this woman probably has certain political leanings that existed prior to the incident.

Anyway, I'm sure VR will be allowed to flourish unfettered, because after all, there's money in it, and politicians like money.

It's not sexual assault. There was no physical contact, as you kindly pointed out. It's harassment, because it was demeaning and lude, and more than unwelcome. Just because it's VR doesn't mean it wasn't 'real'.

You're still being hysterical.

If the game induces bullying, harassment, and violation of other people's rights, then it needs to be moderated. Perhaps the games should be changed. All I see are pointless games about killing everything in sight as brutally as possible. It's encouraging bad behavior. It teaches people that everything is okay as long as they can get away with it, instead of teaching people responsibility for their own actions.

Since when is rape okay? In VR or not? GTA is a heaping pile of garbage, and it encourages lawlessness and vice. I would never let MY kids play shit like that.

How about killing things, as in Quake?
How about shooting down airplanes, as in EF2000?
Breaking the speed limit, running red lights, etc. as in Need for Speed?
It's just pixels on a screen.

I don't play those very often anymore because I'm bored with them, not because they make me antisocial or dangerous in any way.

If you point out my rants over the last few years, that's the result of childhood experiences reinforced by like-minded people on forums, not video games.

Oh, Jesus, you're not one of those idiots that believe violent games make violent people are you?

Taken from the tutorial "How to start a productive discussion".

this thread is bringing me various lols

This is no laughing matter! A woman outside of a Muslim country was literally violated and has to live with it for the rest of her life!

Luigi started doing this years ago in Superstar Saga.

Sure you want to bring Jesus into this? And no, rather the other way around. Violent people like to play violent games. It feeds their need. Congratulations on avoiding everything I said and belittling me at the same time. You should be proud of your accomplishments.

Not meant to be productive. Anyone that takes the view that violent games make violent people are top notch morons. They are right up there with the idiots that say "teach boys not to rape", "teach boys not to steal", or "teach boys murder is wrong".

That brings up the whole first world bullshit of women wanting games to change because the damsel in distress trope is demeaning to women while playing the damsel for their choice cause. Like the African American girl that went to the vigil for the gay bar shooting just to whine about BLM and how she felt scared for being in front of all those white people. My first reaction was, "then get off the stage, no one made you get up there". I mean, I was overjoyed when I saw her derail a day of mourning to whine about BLM and her insecurities.

What makes her story more laughable is the avatar is a helmet, floating bow and floating hand. Don't know if she gives good helmet, but how does one grope an avatar when there is no body to grope? We better consult the invisible man for this case!

Accomplishments mean nothing after you die so there is no reason to waste your life seeking pointless gratification in one's self.

Interesting, it was only belittling to you if you actually believe games make violent people, but you said you don't so it is a moot point. Not avoiding anything, your arguments sound like that of the people that want more games like Gone Home and Depression Quest and do away with Mario, GTA, and any game that they deem negative to the perception of women and LGBT.

Sure, we are arguing fiction so might as well bring in the greatest fictional character of all time.

Maybe you should read my response before you call me a top notch moron again. The only moron here is you, if you think teaching kids morals is a bad thing.

It's clear he was being lewd, whether there was anything there to actually physically grope or not. It made her uncomfortable, and it was harassment.

I can't believe you guys are actually FOR a lame ass loser like BigBro442 getting his jollies off at someone else's expense. Are you really gonna sit there and say he was in the right? Or that his actions were reasonable?

You may not be able to take anything with you, but you can have rewards waiting for you when you die.

TL;DR? Read the bold text.

To spectators his hands would be grabbing only air, but I imagine I would be uncomfortable too from the perspective of the woman.

I'd guess when she looked down in the game she would see his hands there and the perception of VR would probably make her "experience" it. Just like in the horror games in VR you feel like the monster is inches from your face (but isn't really there)

I don't doubt this woman was traumatized. It sounds like she has minimal online experience and thus isn't acclimated** to these scenarios which unfortunately are common in mixed gender encounters because the anonymity "enables" more bold behavior without the obvious risks one would face doing such things in person. The issue is the designers aren't intending on people doing things like that. "Online experiences not rated"

All that said, I've been following that game's progress on the YT channel for a while. I don't remember if there is a "kick player" option but even then you'd probably need popular vote to kick a player. I think it would be an easy and effective "solution" to have a mute function that not only mutes audio but also hides the avatar of an offending player. This might be a good feature in any VR multiplayer game actually.

** I think in general a person shouldn't be expected to be acclimated to such experiences. I don't see a need to actively monitor players but ideally an online game would have systems in place to minimize these occurrences as well as the reminder that behavior of people online is never certain, in any game.

I don't understand why they're defending his actions either. It's not appropriate behavior, and it is largely because of the factor of anonymity.

When I read the OP, I thought "BigBro442" was the idiot he was referring to, not the writer. She didn't do anything wrong or idiotic, and there has yet any convincing claim of the sort.

In any case, games will absolutely need controls in place to prevent people from being subjected to abuse like that. Shitty people like BigBro442 are in fact abundant in the gaming world, and every other group. Shitty people are everywhere, not just on the Internet. They're just tend to max out their shittyness like this because of the anonymity and lack of recourse.

I just messaged the developer on YT. He has shown great attention to player feedback in the past, though there appears to be a brief hiatus in development at the moment.

Fascinating! I've made it clear both times that I was referring to people with those views. You claim you don't have those views, yet keep taking it as a personal attack. Whereas you flat out called me a moron and all I did was smirk when I read it.

Congrats on missing the point. People say to teach them those values to end those crimes, but fail to realize that they already teach those values and we still have rape, murder, and theft. Look at the Capone family, parents were strict Catholic, very moral parents from what I recall from history yet I believe their sons became criminals. Just teaching morals isn't going to curve any of the crimes, history shows this, but people still parrot that teaching morals somehow magically will fix crimes.

I can't believe you are blindly believing her claims. Upon searching no one can even find a user named BigBro442, but if she is so uncomfortable and took the time to write a blog entry outing the guy, why lie about his username to protect him? Gameranx's Editor-in-Chief even commented on how he was unable to find any user by that name. Can't condemn the actions of a person that may not even exist.

You highlighted what is wrong. A woman makes a claim and everyone rushes to fix it without trying to even verify if it is true. This is what pisses me off most, parts of it make it clear the writer of it is telling a bullshit story in order to paint gamers in a negative light, but people are rushing to her side.

For example:

The bold line makes the article seem agenda driven instead of fact driven. The second thing that makes me question it is the reactions she claims her husband and brother-in-law had. When my wife gets assholes bothering her on Facebook or other sites I run to her aid to cuss the guy out, hell I've even made accounts on sites I don't care for just to go defend her. I have trouble believing her husband just sat there laughing while she was yelling "Stop".

Then this:

She told him to stop, but then started making joking comments toward him while he was continuing to do it?

Lastly:

Unless it is a feature of the VR device, I've not seen any QuiVR gameplay that has a "teleport to username" feature. That leads me to believe she is either exaggerating or making it up.

Per her Medium profile:

Her being an author makes me question it even more.

After the UVA Rape claim being false, I'm no longer going to give a woman the benefit of doubt without evidence to back it up. Them being the "fairer sex" doesn't make them 100% honest or factual.

I'm atheist so that means nothing to me.

The whole point of video games is to be able to do things you can't normally do in real life. That's a healthy expression of oneself and a healthy way to engage in that behavior, which we're naturally driven to do. It's no surprise that the most popular media is sold with sex and violence. Our species is hard wired to enjoy sex and violence.

VR takes this to a whole new level. Being "groped" in VR is no worse than being "teabagged" in Call of Duty. It doesn't hurt anyone and somebody is getting a kick out of it. Hell, if groping people in VR can help an actual rapist avoid offending in the real world it could actually help society. Unless women are going to claim that VR "groping" is ever bit as traumatic as real life, in which case they're kind of again sabotaging the narrative of women being every bit as capable as men. Apparently women aren't that strong after all!

Append:

Imagine this instead. Two guys are playing VR together. One of them starts talking homoerotic on the mic and starts making homosexual movements with the other. Neither of them, or certainly not the receiver, is homosexual. Is this man going to cry rape? Or is he just going to call this guy names and either get on with the game or quit and join a new room?

Append2:

Also, from the sounds of it (her joking with the "perpetrator", etc.) it sounds exactly like she was sending mixed messages. Women don't typically understand how men think and certainly don't understand when they're leading a man on. It's hardly a man's fault if a woman is sending the message, "this is fun". Again, "no" doesn't always mean no. If it did, male and female interactions would be a lot easier than they are.

I disagree. In VR it must be harder to "distance" yourself from whatever is happening, since by design it is made to feel like you are physically there. Additionally, instead of a non-changing animation you could manipulate the hands of the avatar in much more provocative ways.

I do agree with perhaps what you were implying, no physical harm can be done directly over the internet, but I think it is folly to not at least consider the mental effects of this scenario to different people, especially those not already calloused from years of virtual experiences (e.g. the typical adult male gamer).

I can't vouch for the author's article but nevertheless I think this scenario is something for VR developers to consider when allowing interaction between players.

Developers usually take that into account already, but their measures are never considered enough. Even if the game has measures in place people still complain about them. GTA V Online for PS4/Xbox One comes to mind as being recently under fire for that. It offers the ability to mute annoying verbally abusive players and PS4 allows you to block other PS4 owners. The game even rewards good behavior in way of $2k, but if you are constantly blowing up players cars in the main lobby you get marked as a bad gamer and restricted to a server with other bad gamers. People were calling for Rockstar to ban players completely.

Even if QuiVR made it possible to for you to not see the player visually they would still complain instead of using the feature. Counter Strike I believe has a mute option for gamers, but instead of using it women gamers have complained about the offensive language and expected the game developers to do something else to satisfy them. There have been videos and articles on this sort of thing where when that feature is brought up they reply with something like "Yeah, but that is only sweeping it under the rug."

The only thing that will satisfy them will the be complete shutdown of the game industry then they can go back to attacking music and movies as their scapegoat for violence and "atrocities against women".

Except the games that people are having issues with have none of that. UN Women went after Japanese games fictional women and how they were represented. Upon which Japan told them no and commented on how they were wasting resources fighting for fictional women instead of fighting for real women that actually need it (like Saudi women). Also seen demands for Mario Bros and Legend of Zelda to be banned. It's interesting that you say induce bullying, yet ignore that when I was growing up gamers were the ones being bullied just for enjoying video games. In the 30-some years I've been alive, that hasn't changed.
This was a writer/"reporter" for Gawker media:
{"name":"CqNt13jWAAAUmNr.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/d\/cdb9e23189b04e702ee21c078360ed88.jpg","w":590,"h":322,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/d\/cdb9e23189b04e702ee21c078360ed88"}

Disclaimer: I skipped most of the discussion, I also haven't bothered reading this article or the article colleagues posted in an office chat this morning. I also don't approve the behaviour of the said assaulter.

But come on, how many times have we been killed in an online game? Let alone violated, t-bagged, sweared at and I don't know what else. You don't like that, you don't play that, simple as that. If you run into a griever (and there's many of them out there) you just skip the round and find some other stranger to play with.

This whole thing gets more attention that in deserves. Yes, there are people out there who haven't grown out of puberty and behave themselves as jerks. Big surprise. I bet that he wouldn't do that in real life, I also bet that had he done that he would either receive a slap on his face or kick in the nuts.

It gets more attention than it deserves for sure -- I think Mr. Phoenix could pick better causes than this. Blowing it out of proportion and making this a bigger deal than it needs to be is actually just feeding the flames.

GTA V is not a child's game what's the problem with people expressing themselves.

Yeah, I'm making a big deal over a possible bullshit story.

The devs implemented a 'fix' for her and her online presence disappeared almost instantly. Her twitter, domain (promoting her book), everything is suddenly gone.

From what I can tell, only Gameranx has tried to verify her story. Thought a few others were, but they gave up after Steam search showed no BigBro442 user. Everyone else just read it and blindly believed it.

Seen some staff of Mic and followers are all over Twitter discussing getting petitions going to get legislation in place for VR to make groping full on sexual assault instead of just harassment.

I'm the hysterical one though.

This thread shows the double standards in place between men and women. A woman makes a claim with zero evidence, but because it's not part of the game, it's harassment and everyone just listens and believes. Yet, in my hypothetical of people attacking me in a VR game where it isn't part of the game or being t-bagged in a FPS (which t-bagging isn't part of a FPS game design) I was told I was being hysterical. Apparently putting your VR hands on a avatars VR chest and crotch is harassment for women, but putting your VR balls in someone's VR face is just fine for men.

All it takes is a charismatic person and enough blind followers to make something stick in people's mind. Jack Thompson did this when he declared games make gamers violent. Even after being disbarred people still believe the lie he started and ignore the charts that showed juvenile crime was decreasing while games popularity was increasing. Look at every mass shooting and how they always claim it was because of games that they became killers or somehow had a connection to it. I've seen some argue they are training games, these people are usually morons that never shot a gun in real life and don't realize that there is no parallel between the two.

And if you're playing offline by yourself, then fine, do whatever the hell you want. But when you're playing with real people, the fact that it's a game doesn't mean that your actions have no effects. Is it really that hard not to be a jerk?

The difference in your scenario is that the situation doesn't happen constantly to the guy. It's a rare occurrence that he can just shrug off. When the harassment is continual however, as it is for a lot of women, it isn't so easy to just "get on with it."

People seem to be over-reacting to this article. The author isn't asking for the industry to be regulated. The only think along those lines that she says is that some rules need to be made, and that's actually a fair statement. New technologies usually come with new sets of rules, and there's no reason why VR is any different. At least one person in this thread has also said that the author should have just reported the incident and moved on, but you can't report someone if they're not doing anything wrong under the current rule set. So yes, rules do need to be made so that the behaviour can be reported.

edit:

It isn't just fine for men to do that one another. But just because we're mostly dumb and lazy enough to bother doing anything about it we shouldn't begrudge women the chance to do something to actually change shitty behaviour.

And yes, it is shitty behaviour. Anyone whose idea of fun is ruining other people's good time does't deserve to be allowed around other people.

Apparently not to some as it seems some consider t-bagging (or tea bagging, whichever you prefer) a perfectly normal part of celebrating a kill even in VR. Should we blame American Football celebrations for why people assume that is perfectly acceptable?

To some people (and a lot more than you'd think), it's normal to go out on the weekend and start fights just for fun. Just because they think it's ok doesn't mean it is.

Maybe. To be honest, I don't understand American culture enough to if your Football culture is a cause of the problem or a symptom.

To my knowledge, people don't celebrate football with tea-bagging

Then again I'm pretty far removed from the stigma of American "culture".

Point is that legally there is no difference, but this thread shows that once gender is brought in people gloss over a man's claim. "A woman's VR avatar was allegedly touched inappropriately? Sexual Harassment! A guy's VR was tea bagged? Not the same thing at all."

It's not laziness of men, it is how we are taught to rush to a woman's defense. Fortunately all the stories that blindly told the story of a woman being attacked, raped, etc. and then finding out it was 100% false has made me completely ignore that teaching. Look at the UVA Rape case, Wu, Quinn, Sarkeesian, or even more recent Chelsea Cain and see how people don't even wait for facts before crucifying someone in the court of public opinion.

See, the way journalism is supposed to work is the writer of the story gives both sides of the story while remaining as neutral as possible. Look at majority of the stories surrounding the above mentioned instances. They all are one sided for each person. The UVA case only told the alleged victim's story without contacting the fraternity. Wu, Quinn, and Sarkeesian stories all paint them as victims of harassment, but to my knowledge has never provided any proof of said harassment which would be a key point of any article that is supposed to give the facts. Then recently Chelsea Cain wrote for the comic Mockingbird, but she forced feminist agenda into it and the fans didn't buy it, but instead of admitting it was wrong she quickly played the victim, declared comics industry sexist and misogynist before deleting her account. I suspect all the articles about her will be one sided too and make comic fans look just as horrible as gamers.

Look at how the games media treats gamers. Gamers are consumers, so the media should be writing articles to give information to consumers to make a decision. No Man's Sky is the recent example of the media forsaking the consumers. No Man's Sky developer kept appearing in interviews promoting the game and making grandiose claims. When the game launched with almost none of the claims or people proving his claims wrong he quickly stopped replying to inquiries. Games media took to blaming gamers saying they built it up too much in their minds instead of taking responsibility for promoting and taking part in over hyping the game and not calling the developers out on their false promises.

This thread shows the same problem though. A woman writes a one sided personal blog entry claiming a gamer did wrong doing. Outs his username. People start falling all over themselves to believe her, apologizing to her for his actions, and even demanding action from the developers. When people try to verify facts, they can't find any user going by BigBro442 and she suddenly shuts down all her internet presence (including her site promoting her upcoming novel). Even in this thread people are condemning the actions based on her word and nothing else. On social media people are calling for petitions to get legislation changed to include VR interactions.

People say this isn't a big deal, except game developers are starting to condemn all gamers based off the words of women that have had no proof of their claims. People working for Nintendo have condemned gamers, people from Bioware (Manveer Heir went on a racist rant against white people and condemned gamers a few months back), Tim Schafer has condemned gamers. Bethesda, Rockstar, and Ubisoft are the only companies I've seen say they are for gamers. Ubisoft even posted a pic of their female staff members to show the industry wasn't anti-woman like Wu, Quinn, and Sarkeesian continue to claim.

Red Dead Redemption 2 just had a reveal teaser trailer with no details about the game. Sites went to attacking the game for not having any female outlaw characters to play as. We have hit a point where if you don't agree with the games media about what direction the industry needs to take you are labeled all the fun names and told you are terrible for liking the games that don't meet their "diverse" standards. Never thought I would see the day where diversity was the new buzzword to force control onto people.

We are approaching the point where games are no longer the creation of the developer, but rather a creation to meet a checklist to appease the morally offended.

[APPEND] Well I was right, they are doing one sided arguments blaming comic fans instead of forcing feminist ideals into the issue or poor sells due to it.

Alleged pages from Mockingbird:
{"name":"CvzRhIfVIAApOLI.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/9\/49f5a9c2766b262bdd7ce7ceab4e6a1c.jpg","w":781,"h":1200,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/9\/49f5a9c2766b262bdd7ce7ceab4e6a1c"}
{"name":"CvzRjtkVUAAVYTY.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/e\/8ea2236c861d9f8e25289505cb05b925.jpg","w":1200,"h":900,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/e\/8ea2236c861d9f8e25289505cb05b925"}
{"name":"CvzRkQMVMAIjv1g.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/f\/8fce4b132ec35db6b56609cbead70a54.jpg","w":1200,"h":900,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/f\/8fce4b132ec35db6b56609cbead70a54"}
{"name":"CvzRku_UAAAbZs0.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8cdca6c0e8bd30b1218de022bd9ea9a3.jpg","w":1200,"h":586,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8cdca6c0e8bd30b1218de022bd9ea9a3"}

You can change your name in Steam at will. I'm not that familiar with Steam honestly but if this person changed their name I'd think a search wouldn't return results.

You keep mentioning tea-bagging in VR. Are you incorrectly referring to CoD as virtual reality or is there actually a VR game where you can shove your crotch in someone's face? QuiVR is the first multiplayer VR game I've personally seen so far.

The whole issue (aside from your points about women) is virtual reality is designed to be perceived as reality. There would be no perceived distinction between the physical player and avatar when you are wearing the helmet.

I believe this quote from the developer's official response says it all.

Why does it always need to be about men vs women. The fact that this happened to a woman is irrelevant. It shouldn't happen to anyone.

Yes, but there are services out there that allow you to search for a previous name and find the user. So far I've not seen that username spring up anywhere other than the articles about her blog.

You have it backwards. It's women vs men because it is women that are calling for equality, expect things changed especially for them, while saying men have toxic masculinity and deal with the things that happen to them. Let's not forget that women wanted to make men having to spread their legs due to our testicle an illegal or at the least offense with consequences.

(First time actually searching for the name)

Yes, all troll accounts made after the article went viral. This was a screencap from October 22 posted by Gameranx Editor-in-Chief Ian Miles Cheong:
{"name":"CvadgKkUAAE8Q_P.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/a\/fa08abc4cee88a5ca6ee383cb27f6b0c.jpg","w":537,"h":325,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/a\/fa08abc4cee88a5ca6ee383cb27f6b0c"}

Those account name changes range from October 22 evening to as late as October 27.

Side note: The original Medium article was suddenly deleted.

I also checked them for QuiVr in the game library. None of them have it (2 of them couldn't be checked because the profiles are private, but both have VAC bans from like 2 or 3 years ago ).

The Red Pill documentary sounds up my alley. I'm annoyed that I can't seem to download it at all. I hope they release it to the public soon (maybe Netflix).

I use steamid.eu because it lists the usernames for each account.

There are three private accounts on the list now.
https://steamid.eu/profile/76561198069824990
https://steamid.eu/profile/76561198087192031
https://steamid.eu/profile/76561198001309440

For The Red Pill documentary, I've contacted Cassie Jaye about distribution after the select screening was over. I'm hoping to hear back from her on that in a few days because the site really doesn't clarify (from what I've seen skimming it) about what the plan is after the select screenings are done.

I think that because it's an indie film and the topic is politically incorrect that she won't be able to fund distribution (but I guess that depends on how far the KickStarter money goes; I bet not far). It'll probably be a challenge to get back their initial investment. But I imagine it'll eventually be released as a free download if they can't distribute it (but I bet Netflix would take it at least).

When I think the bullshit can't get any funnier, this comes along: http://archive.is/ApkMK

According to it, Anita Sarkeesian is apparently a game developer now and apparently comic book fans not liking a feminist writer putting blatant feminist ideologies in their favorite comic makes them worse than gamers who don't want feminist forcing the same ideologies and political correctness into their favorite games. Though, I don't recall GamerGate ever attacking Ashley Judd, but I do recall Felicia Day claiming it did while proclaiming herself the queen of the nerds.

I had a double take at that part, wondering where she suddenly gained this credential. There are plenty of great female comic book heroes, but SJW ideology is not something that makes them so.

You're thinking of TERFers, not women in general. TERFers are not rational humans.

I had my first true experience with VR over the weekend. My partner brought me over to her friend's house so we could try it. Like many of you, I do wear glasses, and I found that I could comfortably wear the Playstation VR headset without having to remove them or make further adjustment to the focus of the lenses. That was fairly nice; apparently this will not be the case for the Vive? It was also very smooth and didn't give any obvious latency when moving your head around. Any movements were accurately recorded and presented in the game world. It all felt so natural, but there was some pixelation and some weird other visual anomaly I'm not even sure how to describe, something like having thousands of tiny little imperfections in the lens, which distracted from the realism.

Of course there's not much in the way of games yet. We just played a few demos. There was a street louge game which I thought was actually rather fun. The shark dive demo was nothing special. My ladyfriend really liked the shooting gallery game and I have to admit it worked really well with how accurately the game seemed to record movements. Her friend got really into some alien shooter thing which bored us to death--or at least to making out on the couch until he finished and caught us in the act. Must have been quite the surprise considering he thought we were straight. But I digress; it's certainly some interesting technology and clearly needs some improvements, but it's still very fun. I think the hardest challenge is going to just be in making proper (ie. non-gimicky) use of the controls in a way that feels natural.

Speaking of which, my friend and coworker is working on exactly that. We've been discussing how to create a VR game in which you control a character from a 3rd-person perspective. After I had contributing some code and ideas, he's gotten around a few of his hangups and was able to get something working which is pretty cool. I don't want to say too much on how it works out of respect for him, so I won't be going into any detail on it, but take my word that it works and feels "freaky."

TERFers? Nah, just RFers. Which is pretty much all vocal Fers and the only Fers with any (read: all) political power.

More to the topic, did you play any online multiplayer games? Were you virtually assaulted? Do you see it as a serious threat?

No. There were multiplayer options but we didn't play anything online. Mostly there was things like score ranking or time trials; "real" games are still largely a work in progress. I have had guys creep on me in other multiplayer games in the past (for example, one weirdo apparently thought I had a sexy voice and asked me to masturbate and record the audio of me moaning to send him a copy of it. I'm not sure why he thought this was an appropriate request) and expect it to be no different with VR. I do not see it as a threat; it should be treated just like any other form of trolling or griefing in any other online games. People have said and done inappropriate things in online games since their inception and I do not think this is any different.

However, outside of the VR world, we did end up at the bar last night and some guy had stepped over the line. My partner and I were doing our own thing when he came over and started talking with her. Didn't think anything of it but since I couldn't hear what he was saying I had no idea what he was trying to do. After a minute or two I noticed he kept eyeing up her chest (she was wearing a Dirndl and is a very large-chested girl). He was moving his hands in a weird erratic way and I for some reason had the impression he was going to grab her. Then he really started leaning over her and staring right at her cleavage. "You have really nice boobies," I heard him say, and that's when I lost it. Threw my hand over her chest, wrapped my other arm around her and pulled her away, and went off at him for being so inappropriate. He of course slowly backed away and disappeared.

Had this type of behavior been done in a VR setting, I probably would have felt disgusted and annoyed with the person (though, admittedly, not to the same degree), but there would (should?) be an option to kick and/or report the offending player, or just switch to a different match.

I decided to visit the forums on a whim and what do I see, another thread about women.

.

Unrelated, the formatting in this thread is messed up when I'm logged in and posts are missing?

Missing might be because of some script or something to ignore people?

I don't have any scripts enabled right now. I'm guessing if Bob ignores Ann, then Ann can't see Bob's posts?

edit: a hard refresh fixed it. There's still some weird artifacts, but I can see all the posts now.

The mentally unstable:
{"name":"CwLocJnVMAA3WGc.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/7\/37cdc7d36f1a4da1ffdb3f462c113abb.jpg","w":550,"h":695,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/7\/37cdc7d36f1a4da1ffdb3f462c113abb"}
Someone said basically the same about the game industry "burn it to the ground, rebuild it and keep men out". I'm sure that makes companies want to rush and be more inclusive.
Getting offended over a game that has zero details about it yet:
{"name":"CvLd2uCWYAAQqAF.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/3\/33044843d4d478826434f6de95364ecb.jpg","w":546,"h":407,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/3\/33044843d4d478826434f6de95364ecb"}

Why do you keep posting the hysterical rants of total idiots? Anyone with half a brain won't listen to them. Makes me wonder why you do.

Little did you know, those idiots are the ones wielding power in our society. Largely because sympathetic, well intentioned, ignorant people implicitly "rescue" the idiots whenever they cry out, assuming the idiots are disadvantaged and weak.

The non-idiots in this space are either in the humanist/equalism/mrm/mra camps, and therefore dissenters of the church of political correctness, or are ignorant of the entire debate and participate out of a misguided sense of honor.

The ignorant "non-idiots" are the pawns that run in to beat down the dissenters, rescuing the idiots and their idiotic ideals, ultimately keeping the idiots in power.

Logic, reason, evidence, and science have no place in political correctness. Political correctness is a religion. You are not welcome to disagree with it. Disagreements that are noticed by the hive will be swiftly settled with angry mobs of ignorant pawns trying to do the right thing without stopping to analyze what that might be.

Back in the nineties I was playing MUDS where you could virtually "do" all sorts of things to your fellow players, up to and including sex using "emotes". Most any MUD had a mechanism to disable those emotes partially on in whole, or to silence them.

The designers of this game made the crucial mistake of forgetting that quite a few people can be ass holes online, and that you have to give the players the tools to deal with them. On the other hand, since no physical contact took place, this is not assault, but abuse of a means of communication to cause distress to a person, which may or may not be illegal where you live. And yes, unfortunately, when you pay online, you should expect to encounter online ass holes from time to time.

As for all this culture wars going on in the USA as of lately, it seems pretty clear to me that this is all funded by the 0.001% to divide and conquer the rest of us. And find excuses to muzzle liberty of expression as a bonus. Those "idiots" get media attention because they are "useful idiots", that is, useful to the elite.

Because those total idiots lead to things like this being taken serious:
{"name":"CwMlcCyUMAQhcPD.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/b\/2b449e86f536c1f5535ab44b571c5754.jpg","w":597,"h":469,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/b\/2b449e86f536c1f5535ab44b571c5754"}
Sorry, have to bring up GG once again as it is the best example of why those are dangerous. When I first read the Zoey Post, I viewed it as nothing more than a jilted ex-lover whining about his loss. It wasn't until I saw Quinn's twitter where she said he dumped her that I started wondering about the claims. Upon looking into it Nathan Grayson covered Quinn's failed game jam, only telling the story from her side. Then found two articles where he name dropped her game, positive coverage. All three articles didn't mention they were friends.

Then the claims got more complicated when it was revealed she was friends with people that were on the IndieCade board where she won an award. Then Anita started her Tropes Versus Women series where she lied about games to sell her narrative. When gamers, myself included, contacted game sites to find out why they weren't calling these women out on it like they did with Jack Thompson we got greeted with the "Gamers are Dead" articles from people at game sites: http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead

On top of that we had game developers shitting on gamers. Devs like Tim Schafer, Manveer Heir. Writers, like Sam Biddle calling for bullying of "nerds" for fighting their narrative. Actors like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton (and his wife) all started attacking their fan base because they dared to challenge the false narrative feminists were telling about gamers outraged over proof of writers covering their friends, former lovers, or former roommates without disclosing they were friends.

This site spawned because of the media blitz attacking gamers: http://deepfreeze.it/

In two years there have been zero proof that gamers or GamerGate have done any wrong doing. On the other hand the anti-gamergate people have a huge history. Randi Harper, creator of the GGAutoBlocker, has a history of bullying people as well as doxing a debt collector in order to scare him from contacting her. Yet she is praised by the media for being anti-bullying. Quinn started Crash Overdrive Network (CON), an anti-harassment group, but recently leaks called the CONLeaks, verified by former CON members like the Gameranx EIC, showed they fabricated most of the harassment to garner positive coverage. One member of the CON group was outed as using CON to further harass women that were seeking CON assistance. There are more cases of the people who spin the narrative that GamerGate is terrible being accused of sexual assault and rape, apologizing for the claims and then resigning from jobs. Wu, used to be a moderator of a transgender message board where she was dismissed because she treated other trans like shit. Yet the media teats these people like they are the paragons of wholesomeness, the deities of the internet while ignoring their actions in order to continue their narrative. "Games journalists" even tried to avoid the conversation of ethics by claiming they were just bloggers, upon which Stephen Totilo said he doesn't hire bloggers only journalists. Jason Scheier flat out stated on Twitter, that Objectivity was a silly thing to strive for.

There are tons of examples of members of the game media admitting they aren't ethical and lied about gamers, but the media just keeps pushing the narrative that gamers hate women, don't want women in tech (which would ignore successful women like Jade Raymond, Amy Hennig, and the endless list of women that were and are a success in the industry. Instead they promote Wu and Quinn like the are the queens of tech (even though Wu couldn't even quote specs correctly for the Playstation or claims to be a programmer and can't build a computer from scratch, claiming it is too hard to do). The more idiot rants there are, like the one I linked in the previous post, are what the media use to push the narrative that gamers, comic fans, etc. are women hating men.

CNN, Clinton News Network, is another prime example of the media wanting to stick to a narrative. They went on about Trump giving Miss Universe Machado a hard time over her weight, but tried to hide the fact that they ran an article giving her a hard time over her weight too.
{"name":"CwNGC6vVUAEEJQ7.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/b\/3b97b8744cce3b4879b0576e36725c02.jpg","w":640,"h":1021,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/b\/3b97b8744cce3b4879b0576e36725c02"}
{"name":"CwCz5MBXYAApFXO.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/0\/b0206e7b94c35c38072a058fae18ea5c.jpg","w":640,"h":470,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/0\/b0206e7b94c35c38072a058fae18ea5c"}

We'll just ignore them while the media push them as examples to push narratives and force change in media they don't like.

Even In A Virtual World, The Harsh Reality Of Sexual Harassment Persists

All I see are dumbasses white knighting for a woman that gave zero evidence of her claims. As soon as the article dropped on Medium, gamers started trying to find BigBro442 in order to condemn his actions, but was treated to a screen saying no user existed. Gameranx Editor in Chief, Ian Cheong was just the most credible I could show that pointed out he didn't exist. Yet everyone's reaction is still, "He doesn't exist? Well his actions are still terrible!" Who's actions? If a person doesn't exist, then they can't harass anyone.

Seems everyone is missing what that fact implies. The oddities in her story, the user she named not existing, and her abrupt shutting down of all her media pages (Facebook, Twitter, Medium, and her book promotion site) blocking any verification attempts. Makes the article seem like a work of fiction rather than fact, but that hasn't stopped anyone from blindly believing it and condemning a non-existent user.

Jordan is a feminist, and we have already seen feminist try to demonize gamers and men for the past few years now. Her story has different media sites demonizing gamers as sexual predators using VR to heighten their perversions.

Why should we worry about the rants of idiots? Game developers have quickly removed tweets that weren't offensive, but because idiots ranted and complained about finding it offensive. Developers, especially indies, have admitted to self censorship due to fearing the outrage of the easily offended instead of just simply making the game.
{"name":"CwPf3DuWgAA4LoP.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/8\/a87a1601337510811cc48a9bf48fb898.jpg","w":609,"h":555,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/8\/a87a1601337510811cc48a9bf48fb898"}
{"name":"CwPf587XEAEKlf-.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/e\/7ed44ccd7ceffbb986ca6258bbdea1e0.jpg","w":673,"h":708,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/e\/7ed44ccd7ceffbb986ca6258bbdea1e0"}
The bottom page is a Kotaku article, an alleged game site. Game sites are supposed to be reviewing games (story, mechanics, graphics, sound etc.) and major news events in the industry. Instead they spend 98% of their time writing pieces that whine about political correctness and social justice issues not being forced into games. I've linked to the article where a reviewer removed points for a game because it objectified women. MovieBob even went on a rant via Twitter about how meritocracy is terrible. These morons don't want people to have jobs based on their abilities and don't want games to be enjoyed, they want them to force ideologies (particularly feminist ideologies). That is why they praise Gone Home.

Well Specter, since your solution for women is to just ignore everything they find offensive, insulting, and harassing, why don't you take your own advice and just man up and ignore what the "feminists" are saying? You talk about people being overly sensitive, but you're making mountains out of molehills yourself.

Those tweets by Battlefield are irrelevant, there was nothing 'offensive' about them and they're simply too self conscious for their own good. If you and everyone else would stop giving these people so much attention what they are saying wouldn't matter. You're the one giving them power over you.

I agree with Edgar.

Personally, my life has improved since I've stopped giving antagonistic individuals my attention!

Maybe you are right.

Maybe I should just ignore the feminist run games media that are attacking games for not dealing with social justice issues they hold important, and attacking game developers for not making the main character a woman or person of color.

Maybe I should ignore AAA game developers like Manveer Heir during his "kill all white men" twitter rants while he is making Mass Effect Andromeda. Ignore his attacking other developers for not agreeing with his politics.

Maybe I should ignore Ghostbusters 2016, which was a blatant feminist angled movie which bombed and made Sony execs state they had no interest in attempting any future Ghostbuster movies. Effectively killing the franchise.

I should ignore the localization companies that are changing Japanese dialogue to feminist agenda remarks. Doing so is making Japanese companies lose interest in releasing to the west.

Publishers still think games media have their finger on the pulse of gamers.

I should just ignore it all, then I can look forward to future feminist games like Mortal Kommunication where you press buttons to pick feeling replies and talk out your problems instead of fighting. Or the next GTA sequel, Grand Talking Anchored where you talk about your feelings and can't bring yourself to kill anyone in the game because they are human beings while avoiding strip clubs and hookers because you can't objectify women like that. Sigh The future of feminist gaming looks so amazing, makes me want to walk through and read everything in Gone Home again! That thrilled me to no end.

You should try a little self-reflection exercise. Try and determine how you're approaching the issue, and how you're going about enacting change.

Are you discussing the issue with others, online or in person? How? Give your self 0 points if it's online, 1 points if in person.

Are you actively following some organized efforts to enact change, such as protesting in-person? How? Then give yourself 2 points.

Are you actively organizing efforts for you and others to enact change? How? Then give yourself 4 points.

Are you leading efforts to enact change? How? Then give yourself 8 points.

Add up your points. What did you get? If you got 1 or less, you're doing nothing for the issue, and you might as well not bother yourself with it. If you got 3 or less, you're doing better but only on a personal level, and are as Hendry David Thoreau would say, "a majority of one." If you got 3-7, then you're actively working to enact change. If you got 8 or more, you're actively leading change.

For example, on the issue of corporate surveillance, I discuss it with others online by voicing my opinion, so +0 points. But I've also gone to campaign stops to discuss my concerns, ask possible candidates to consider my position, and have contacted senators and other politicians by phone and mail. So +1 point.

I have stopped using almost all services offered by Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, and use proper privacy tools (browser add-ons, and Tor when feasible) to prevent any mistaken tracking. So +2 points.

I'm not currently organizing efforts to enact change. No points. I'm not currently leading efforts to enact change. No points.

(This exercise is a work in progress. It probably has some flaws.)

What am I talking about and complaining about? This is for equality!

Male gamers get harassed online and berated regularly online. Male gamers response is "Fuck you" and goes back to gaming.

Women get harassed online, outs it, and everyone rushes to implement protection for them.

True equality almost brings a tear to my eye.

You're not being coherent.

No I'm being perfectly coherent. "Feminism is about equality." "Women are equal to men." Male gamers get harassed and attacked in games regularly and all they do is tell the person doing it to "Fuck off" before going back to gaming. A woman is subjected to the same thing and people break their necks to "fix" it. Equality is apparently code for protect the delicate women from the same crap men simply ignore.

All the gaming controversy shows that. The women that are truly equal to men that play games have no issue with them. The women that want special treatment complain about them and any woman that says she is fine with the games as they are is told she has internalized misogyny.

*Slow clap*You obviously didn't read the Kotaku article I linked as it stated Battlefield only removed the tweets AFTER negative feedback (ie easily offended idiots whining about how their non-offensive tweets offended them). Lionhead Studio had the same thing happen last year. This is what political correctness is getting us. People are so afraid of offending people that as soon as one person says they are offended they quickly pull it and apologize.

Lionhead, on National Cleavage Day, posted a picture (below) which was met with women complaining sexism and objectification so they deleted the tweet. Guess they never played Fable 2.

{"name":"2836738-fable.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/b\/3b9d37f6fef2aff121e26359e5474685.jpg","w":302,"h":380,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/b\/3b9d37f6fef2aff121e26359e5474685"}

Pillars of Eternity had a similar problem. A backer gave a harmless poem about a man who slept with a woman to find out they were a man and committed suicide. People got offended, said it was transphobic (they love their buzzwords) and he had to change it, he got the last laugh with the change, but still political correctness and the easily offended bombarded the dev until they asked him to change it.
{"name":"poem.PNG","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/a\/6aecbae7a2d7bf1cd583e978547bf8a9.png","w":624,"h":352,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/a\/6aecbae7a2d7bf1cd583e978547bf8a9"}
Changed to:
{"name":"poe1.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/6\/c636a29208926eeeb4849aca67ebfda8.png","w":810,"h":423,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/6\/c636a29208926eeeb4849aca67ebfda8"}

I said, they were too self conscious. I said, they let them have power over them. I said, there was nothing offensive about them. It was a mistake to remove innocuous content. They shouldn't have kow-towed to a bunch of whiners.

Men shouldn't be getting harassed either. The double standard is that men are told to 'man up' and deal with it. What the women are fighting for is valid, and that is the right to have a safe, inclusive gaming environment. You should be fighting for the same thing.

So women aren't equal to men? Thanks for admitting that. It takes courage. I happen to agree with them, men have been putting up with this shit for the longest time, and it's about time someone did something about it. That it takes a woman to do it says a lot about men in general, because they're generally apathetic, insensitive, and rude. Don't deny it, you know it's true.

That is sexist and it does objectify women. Not saying I don't like cleavage, but they have a valid point.

He shouldn't have caved in to them. It was a lousy poem, but he has the right to his own opinion about what is proper and what he finds to be humorous.

Just who are these people you keep going on about, and why do you care what they think? If people would stop listening to them, nothing they say would matter.

Queue the ignorant "non-idiots" I mentioned earlier. If 100,000 people show up to blow your walls down their "opinion" starts to be less than just talk. People lose their careers over this shit, their companies fail, their personal lives are left in ruin. The power of SJW's is real. That's all the more reason to stand against them. And that's what we're doing. The problem is, you're defending them and contributing to the problem.

Sexism exists. It's ingrained in our culture. If a man is beaten up nobody blinks. If a woman gets knocked down accidentally people will beat the living shit out of the guy that did it. That's sexism. And no Feminist has ever complained about it. They complain about the so-called "sexism" that disadvantages them, but the sexism that advantages them is just fucking great. That's also the problem with the current generation and the younger generations that were raised with the mentality that women are an oppressed class (not really true). They see all imbalances towards women as oppression and all imbalances men as just revenge. They don't understand the history behind the history, and they don't understand the science behind it either. They demand quotas to make up for women's different interests. They're just happy to keep men inhaling toxic dust and dying at work though. No women need apply there.

The point is the entire Feminism movement is more of a religion than an equality movement. It has absolutely nothing to do with equality. Zero. Zip. Notta. These people are powerful because political correctness is assumed to be a good thing by kids and adults that were indoctrinated from a young age to believe that it was a good thing. Only the intelligent ones among the population question it. So naturally there's an entire drone army of less than intelligent ones to support the cause. That's where all of the power comes from. The numbers. The donations. The money. And also, it stands to reason, that the so called elite "illuminati" can benefit from a powerful force such as Feminism to control the population as well.

In any case, the problem with this kind of idiocy is that it's powerful. You cannot just ignore it because there is an army 1000x your size that is going to trust the headlines and stand behind it. It's up to the intelligent people to assess the evidence and challenge the idiocy. What's dumb is assuming this is a minority movement that complains and gets nowhere if men don't raise a fuss about it. It actually is far more powerful than any men movement. It happens in spite of men (and women) joining together to oppose it and trying to appeal to logic and reason within the population to fight it. Most of the population is happy to just support the bullshit and pat themselves on the back for it. They're like sheep. They're herd animals. They go where the herd goes.

It's a very, very serious problem. Not only do we have the injustices with sexism to blame for it, but also the other serious problems the planet faces, like for example a significant number of Americans that still believe climate change isn't real... All of those idiots wield significant power that affects us all. This is just another branch of that in action.

Append:

The most outrageous thing happens when you compare the history of women with black people in our culture. Black people were an oppressed demographic and arguably are still oppressed today, though not to the same extent that they once were. In any case, I dare you to compare the history and come to the conclusion that women were ever oppressed in that fashion. Yet, look at our society today. Black people are still in a class struggle. In America, some kind of crazy majority of poor and imprisoned people is black or Hispanic males (is it like 80%?). How are the women faring? Unfortunately for the minority women they're doing a bit poorer than the white women, but still faring better than their male counterparts. Women in general are the untouchable class. They're not oppressed. The entire system is designed to protect them and take care of them. It always has. If that's oppression you can oppress me anytime!

Read that and then read your first comment again. You just gave the fix. Men don't take the harassment because of being told to "man up", they take it because they don't give the words being said to them any power. A good example of this is how some African Americans have absolutely no problem with their African American friends saying the N-word to them, but if a white friend said the exact same line in the exact same context they get offended because they give the word the power to offend them. Another example is the Feminist campaign of "Ban 'Bossy'"

No, I said the women that whine about not being equal are just wanting special treatment. The women that are equal don't stress over it.

Except these people are culture critics, developers, IDGA, DiGRA, and journalists whom hold extreme third wave feminist views and that are considered well respected in the game industry. If they deem something wrong their followers hound developers until the developers have no choice and have to cave. Some game sites have even went so far as to deny reviewing any Indie game that doesn't meet their feminist agenda. Can't remember if it was Polygon or Kotaku, but they said if your game has a white male hero they have no interest in reviewing it. Though they do whine when Bethesda added them both to their blacklist for shitting on gamers who enjoyed their games.

What are you doing, other than complaining on Allegro.cc, about this issue?

While it may be a buzzword, it does describe a real phenomena, and this idea does seem to be an expression of transphobia to me.

It seems fine to ask someone to change a poem like that. This is a very serious issue for some people, and if I were working on a project with someone and they wrote poems like that which got bad attention and prominence, and which is something I wouldn't really want to be involved in, I would hope he could understand the misstep. It's very common for trans women to be murdered by men in these situations, and it's a hot button topic for millions of people.

You're free to express your opinions, but not wherever the hell you want to.

Not only to you, but to actual transgender people as well. I can already see my trans friends cringing. Fun fact: I may have just made a new friend last night who then let me know she was trans. I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate being told that she's "really a man," nor being made out to be a freak that, upon sleeping with her, would disturb her partner so much that they felt the need to take themselves out.

You're right, me and bamccaig should just do like you and everyone else and turn a blind eye to it while lying to ourselves that they have no power.

Ghostbusters is effectively ruined because it pushed feminist ideologies, but they have no power.

Feminist followers have gotten people fired for disagreeing with them, but they have no power.

Feminist run localization companies are removing huge chunks of original dialogue in recent games to push feminist ideologies, but they have no power.

Publishers think the games media have their finger on the pulse of the gamer consumer base and the games media is mostly feminist now and claiming gamers want feminist angled games, but they have no power.

Let's keep our heads in a hole and let Feminists take over the industry. Won't be long and the industry will have a new crash.

So you can speak for transgender now? That is interesting because a lot of transgender men and women contacted the team and the original author via Facebook and Twitter saying they had no problem with it and even said the devs should have kept it. Many pointed out that the people mad about it were being offended for a group that didn't find it that offensive at all.

So what actions are you taking in response to the issue of third-wave feminism?

For example, I dislike corporate and government surveillance so I've actively undergone efforts to limit the information corporations, and to a lesser extent, government can obtain by using various browsing habits and using services like Tor. I've also contacted my representatives, and have gone to campaign stops of potential representatives, to present my concerns.

What have you done, in your case?

First of all, anyone that reads twitter tweets is a twit. I just spent 20 minutes reading gamergate hashtags on twitter and I literally feel dumber. And I didn't see anything there controversial or offensive, rather it was mundane and pointless. What a waste of time. Why do you spend time listening to this shit?

It's like people who read the National Enquirer looking for real news and actually believing what they read.

Name one person who lost their job because of the Feminazis. Name one company who's stock dropped after they boycotted them. Can you? Otherwise you're just continuing to be hysterical about something that is totally a non issue. And like Aaron said, what are you doing about any of it, besides whining here?

Nope. Nope nope nope.

On the contrary, the man in the poem was raped because the 'woman' he slept with didn't give him all the information he was entitled to first. So the man is the victim in this story, yet you can see how the trans person automatically gets everyone's help. We can debate why that is - are they the ones who seem to be most troubled in general life and therefore naturally attract sympathy?

Personally I would have kept the poem up, perhaps putting out a one-off, short, statement stating that trans people have all my support, provided they don't commit rape like the one in the poem .

So, Aaron's question - personally I just watch all this stuff on YouTube and worry about it a little, but recognise that I have no persuasive ability and should focus on what I'm good at, which is - at the moment - firmware programming . That said, when the police recently announced a 'hate crime awareness week' featuring a hideously open-to-abuse definition of what a hate crime was (anything that one person says is one), I did write in and express my concerns.

Perhaps Tim Hunt?

Or how about Donald Trump for his "grab 'em by the" video which was really just him being a lad, while Hillary Clinton is busy starting world wars and practising mass embezzlement and deception which are clearly much more serious problems?

That is not accurate...

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but that's not accurate at all. You're also underplaying the backlog of sexist remarks Trump has made in this campaign, let alone his life.

Although I'm interested to learn more about it and how it's not accurate, I think it's more important to get our priorities straight. If Hillary Clinton is committing such massive humanitarian crimes, why does criticising her only get five words in your post and you focus so much on whether Trump is sexist? Do you think his alleged sexism could be as bad for the world and the country as Hillary's crimes? Or maybe you're saying Hillary isn't committing such crimes, but then you'd have actually said it, so... you can't be saying that? I'm confused.

I simply acknowledged the points you made.

You claim Clinton is committing or has committed humanitarian crimes. Support this point with evidence. You claim Clinton is committing or has committed mass embezzlement. Again, support this point with evidence. You claim Clinton is practicing mass deception. Again, needs support.

I can't feasibly prove Clinton isn't doing any of these. But I didn't make the claims. (For the record, if she were guilty of any of these, she would not be running for president. You know why? Republican-run Congressional committees.)

I can, however, prove the Trump has made a litany of sexist remarks in his campaign. And while I can also prove Trump has made a great many racist and xenophobic remarks (among other things), as well, you never mentioned Trump in this manner so I didn't bring it up. Do you see my point?

I suppose you're right. The part that got a reaction from me is that suicide (also a potential hot topic) seems like an extreme reaction and so it seems like a harsh criticism of trans people to a degree.

The poem is not something I would personally complain about. I can just understand why people would.

In part the sympathy grows the more you learn about the LGBT community I guess. Trans people are vulnerable to discrimination and they are disproportionately targeted in ways that nobody should have to experience.

Don't forget Clementine Ford bragged about getting a man fired because he called her a "slut" on social media.

Feminists tried to get the YouTuber Thunderf00t fired. A feminist tried to get a US Soldier discharged because he called her out for claiming text gave her PTSD. She demanded to have his commanding offircers name and number.Developer Jason Miller was fired from his job after a feminist complained because he did something so terrible, he had a tweet with the hashtag NotYourShield.

Let's not forget about the feminists whom lied about being raped or sexually assaulted, ruining the lives of the men they claimed did it.

Feminists have made it so men are too scared to even mentor women now.

Don't forget Greg Elliot faced a possible prison time because he dared to oppose a feminist's views on Twitter.

Adria Richards claimed a man allegedly talked about "forking" and "dongles" sexually. Upon which she reported to his employer and got him fired. When he retaliated and went to her boss and got her fired she claimed she was the victim and media told men to "get a grip".

Contact my representatives? Been doing that since the Jack Thompson started in on games. At least back then they sent the generic "Thank you for expressing your concerns" letter, now you get the confirmation that your concerns were sent. Let's be clear, your concerns go to your representative's staff and they decide if it is worth elevating to the representative to look at. Congress don't view games as anything more than children's toys so any concerns about the feminist religion trying to conquer gaming isn't priority to them and won't make it pass the staff.

Write to the media? You mean that same media that published and parroted the feminist lies about #GamerGate being a mob of white male gamers seeking to chase women out of tech while only being able to use Wu, Quinn, Anita, and a few other feminists as examples of "women in tech" and most outlets steered clear when Amy Hennig spoke out that she had not experienced sexism in her long career and said the claims that the industry was sexist were disturbing to her. What about Jade Raymond, Carol Shaw, Kim Swift, Corrinne Yu, Roberta Williams, Sherry McKenna, Mari Shimazaki, Lori Cole, Jane Jensen, Donna Bailey, Kellee Santiago, or the many more women that have been and are successful in the industry? In fact, Anita complained about Bayonetta being sexist and eye candy for men and no way empowering to women, but Bayonetta was designed by Mari Shimazaki. These women are successful and well respected in the industry and should be held up as role models for women seeking to get into the industry, instead the media want to use Wu, Quinn, and Anita and paint this image that the industry has an issue with women just because gamers called them out on their lies.

Maybe I can write the President and voice my concern, wait, no....the POTUS may be Clinton who has a history of blaming video games for violent crimes, trying to get legislation in place to fine retailers for parents buying children mature rated games, and said she is a feminist.

Yeah, I'm drawing a blank on exactly who I am supposed to go to.

The fact that upsetting or crossing a woman, homosexual, or trans-gendered person (especially a female one) can ruin a person or organization should actually make things worse for them. Do you want to fill your organization with ticking time bombs of entitlement and victimhood or try to stay off the SJW radar instead and keep the staff limited to the demographics that don't cry wolf?

When these people are forcibly hired to meet quotas the problem is exacerbated. The SJW is likely not to be the best candidate, whereas the man she gets fired was probably a valuable member, there on their own merit. I hope in time society hits back. Abolishes quotas and refuses them employment out of self preservation. What's sad is that the women, homosexuals, and trans-gendered with merit are judged by their louder, toxic peers. Everybody learns to be skeptical of these groups because of the very serious harm they cause.

The world is a dangerous place (men know that much better than women do). There is no way to make it "safe" for everyone. Laws already exist to make terrible acts punishable. People still commit terrible acts. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you, but unless you have any better ideas how to stop the bad guys without netting the good guys too you're just being childish and undermining the freedoms we've learned over time to demand and defend.

Personally I've contacted my representatives in government on several occasions. As Specter explained, you're lucky to get any reply at all from the office, and if you do there's no guarantee the actual elected official wrote it or saw yours, and even if they did the response is just "thank you, but fuck you". Government is not going to undermine this golden goose they have on their hands. They can get away with anything!

As for activism in public, it's a dangerous thing to have these kinds of ideas in this day and age. You can lose your entire career, face exile, or potentially even end up getting imprisoned on some bullshit charge (or at least, owe a bunch of debt to cover the legal fees to NOT). It is that ridiculous. I don't think I'm brave enough to take those risks. Not that in-person activism will get you very far. Most men's rights activism seems to end up with an angry mob of "Feminiazis" trying to disrupt it by any means necessary and the media covers the event as if it was a hate group smashing baby skulls on wells.

Online I participate in intelligent discussions whenever I can (and amuse myself when people are incapable of that). I strive to learn more about the situation to better my own beliefs, while fighting to awaken the masses to the irrational lies that we've all been taught to accept without question for generations. I do my best to encourage friends, family, and peers to question the status quo and challenge the doctrine. I do everything I consider reasonable, including donating money to organizations that I believe will use it to work towards a better future.

Claiming that if you do not want it, you shouldn't be there is about an idiotic statement as one could imagine!

I am personally sick and tired of multiplayer games for a similar reason. People harass the shit out of you and nothing is ever done about it.

I would gladly like to see laws covering this sort of thing. Laws which take the anonymity out of the picture and have real consequences behind harassing people. It's long overdo.

If the game is open to the public, than it needs to have laws to govern behaviour. Harassment is harassment. These people need to be punished by being banned. Perhaps give them 3 chances with progressively harsher punishments, the third time resulting in a ban of their IP.

By mandating laws with harsh penalties, it puts a lot of burden on the gaming companies involved because to do it right it would require diligent moderation. People do abuse report functions and online game play, spoken and written dialog will have to be recorded and kept for a minimum duration so it can be reviewed by a human or else innocent people will be banned by stupid children, toxic SJWs and other types of trolls.

The best action is voicing your concerns when they're campaigning, or if they're in office, calling and writing a letter. And also organize, and get others to do the same. Why do you think the NRA is so successful?

The feminists you discuss aren't doing any of these, so your voice is the only one that matters.

I wouldn't suggest that. The capitalistic media is generally toxic, whatever it broadcasts. It simply benefits itself at the cost of an informed consumer. For example, the media has made so much off exploiting consumers in this election, and now look at the state of it.

Organize a men's rights group that simply promotes failures for men's rights. Don't bring up women. Make men's rights an independent issue of women's rights.

If you can't, then why bother concerning yourself with the issue? For example, there's nothing I can do about US foreign policy, so I don't spend tens of hours a week concerning myself with it. I keep informed, yes, but I don't obsess over it.

The world is only as good as you make it out to be.

Why do they have to be LGBT? I've upset people and they've tried to "ruin" me, it does make it worse for them. People in general who have vindictive personalities will often self destruct.

The pro-BigBro arguments just seem like trying to come up with excuses for why people should be terrible.

There's a lot of money in firearm, ammo, accessory sales, service, and let's not forget enforcement and imprisonment (i.e., US prison system is largely private). It's also another way for the US government to keep the population ignorant and easily controlled. In short, there's money and power in it.

Arguably, there's more money in it for interested parties to back Feminism. Aside from taxing the men to take care of the women and taking their slice (probably less significant in the US), there's also a lot of money changing hands in family resolution/child support/enforcement. It also remains to be seen if women actually can perform "equally". Forcing them to be responsible for themselves and expecting the same of them as we do of men might well collapse society and/or ruin the golden goose that they have. It will likely cost a lot of money and rob them of control over the population.

There's a problem with your logic. Many of women's so called "rights" and privileges fronted by the Feminist political machine are at the expense of men. For example, family courts preferring mothers to fathers. For example, mothers having no consequences for lying to a man about the biological father of the baby. These issues impact women, and correcting the problem is directly contrary to women's "rights". You cannot have both ways. The discussion is naturally and necessarily also concerned with women's "rights" because more often than not those come at the expense of men in some way.

The NRA is different from your standard lobbyist group. The NRA posts a notice on anti-gun legislation to its members, and its members contact their representatives. Those who are indifferent or supportive of the legislation are always silent. The representatives thus hear from the opposition, and think the bill is bad, so they vote against it to ensure their future success.

See: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/taking-on-the-n-r-a

I don't understand. The NRA is used by the government to keep the population ignorant?

What does "largely" mean? I'd think it means greater than 50%, but only ~8% of inmates are in private prisons as of 2010 (1. "Too good to be true: Private prisons in America", table on p. 1; 2. "for-profit companies are responsible for approximately 6 percent of state prisoners, 16 percent of federal prisoners", . Don't get me wrong, private prisons are disgraceful--personally, the entire criminal system is inhumane--but don't misrepresent the issue. That's a mistake.

How?

How much is "a lot"?

What do you mean? Are you talking about intellectual or physical differences? Keep in mind most jobs in first-world countries don't involve labor anymore.

This is a very poorly worded statement. You are claiming women are irresponsible. This is a generalization. You are claiming by having women be responsible, we may collapse society. This is a very bold claim. Where is evidence of this?

("Political machine" is not the right term. Maybe you mean lobby?) Where is evidence that feminism is responsible for family courts preferring mothers? Can you support this claim? I'm aware fathers are disproportionately punished, but I'm explicitly asking how feminism affects this. Are you sure it's not the stereotypical roles that the mother is the loving, caring one and the father is the stern, indifferent one? That's not feminism (i.e., rights for women).

So are gender rights a zero-sum game?

...

I expect evidence, otherwise your no more informed than the feminists you call 'ignorant'. Personally, I think you'd benefit by spending more time trying to be persuasive. It would also make your posts more civil.

https://archive.is/Ngelw

First comment on it:

Make a game that the feminist games media deems "problematic" and you are instantly a GamerGate supporter. Proof? None given, but facts aren't needed for people to form online lynch mobs against those who challenge their views of that Utopian world that floats in their minds.

Dev told the "journalist" the code was place holder code to just get the system working and that the bugs in this release are already fixed in the next? That's okay, they'll ignore it to claim the game is sexist and has sexuality issues. Small group of assholes discuss killing lesbian/gay characters so the game is to blame, not the assholes that are discussing it. It's no wonder AAA devs are starting to blacklist Kotaku, Polygon, and RPS from getting review copies. Hell, Bethesda now won't give review codes until 24 hours before the launch date.

Though, if game culture and gamers are dead, I supposed the only fault left is the developers. Wonder when they will be declared dead by the games media.

For shits and giggles, The Ralph Retort is about as tabloid as you can get, but he is a journalist that claims he is a blogger even though he has journalist credentials. Brianna Wu is considered by games media as the "leading female game developer in the industry" so it's entertaining when she posts stuff like this that TRR points out: http://theralphretort.com/infamous-nutter-brianna-wu-claims-the-fbi-was-infiltrated-by-gamergate-1103016/

Well now we add new things developers have to worry about:
{"name":"CwbgNkiWEAAqvO7.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/a\/7a8d6d49c38bc6f8e288aabdc66c4bce.jpg","w":1200,"h":677,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/a\/7a8d6d49c38bc6f8e288aabdc66c4bce"}

Game developers now have to worry about if you are meeting the LGBTQ quota, the Feminist quota, the POC quota, and now the Religion quota. Why stress making them fun? Just push the quotas!

http://archive.is/AFGTC WHY?!

Your anger is being farmed for ad revenue. You click, you get upset, you share, they profit.

That is why I use or try to use archive.is for most of the links I share.

You're missing the bigger picture, I think.

No, you are saying they are trolling, making clickbait titles to spark my anger and get me to click on the article in order to drive their revenue up. Upon sharing it I am helping push their revenue up. Which is why I try to remember to use archive.is when I see them because they get no revenue from people reading the archives.

Kind of like those "quizzes" that say something like "Name a word that starts with Z! 90% will fail!" Of course they get tons of people sharing it for the ridiculousness of it.

This is a bit overdue (which Neil might be interested to know we Brits pronounce differently from overdo ), but:

OK, so I have got my information from Sargon of Akkad. There's no doubt he has a political leaning of his own, but he does seem to pride himself on trying to cite real sources, so I generally tend to end up trusting him. If you can find holes in his logic, please tell me as it will be a learning experience for me on whom to trust

Here are the two most pertinent videos for this subject.

"Hillary Must Lose" is an overview of the various reasons why he believes that:

"Hillary Wants War" goes in more detail into that aspect of it:

The general message I got from it was that she is committing humanitarian crimes (war) or at least plans to; that she embezzles (perhaps I'm using the term loosely but she receives underhand money from all sorts of dodgy places including foreign governments and motivated corporations); and that she practises mass deception (i.e. lies constantly, and laughs off valid accusations). As I said, willing to be persuaded otherwise if you can point out where the flaws in those videos are for me.

By the way, thanks for mentioning the NRA - I hadn't heard of them and had no idea that was happening. I think whoever said it was right that there's money in it and thus justification to dedicate some number of paid hours a day to lobbying for guns to stay as unregulated as possible. Ideally we'd have an opposing organisation whose members fight the opposing side, but who will pay for that?

On a general note, this next video was a mindblow for me and has turned me from resenting how car-dominated our roads are in the UK (really I feel constantly oppressed by it, to use a trigger word , as I'm sensitive to noise and smells and also aware of the danger, and also a lot of drivers are stressed and it shows) ... turned me from that into being thankful that our society is as safe as it is.

Note that the anonymity saves life's guess how many people would be murdered if say the only way to play DOTA was to be sitting right next to your team mates. maybe we should make it a social experiment we could give out the names and addresses of dota players

I'd like to see her try to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. Just to see how Russia responds. Personally I think it's about time the U.S. is brought down a peg or two. One can only hope that all the shit they've been shoveling around will eventually be dumped right on their front lawn.

You want to see two countries escalate toward armed conflict? That's rather extreme.

I do enjoy watching people saying women aren't equal to men and use things like the wage gap or male dominated jobs as proof.

Biologically men and women will NEVER be equal and that is a fact that feminists refuse to acknowledge. They want equality, yet they keep making up genders to feel special: non-binary, gender fluid, and the laughable preferred pronoun horseshit. A transgender woman stated there are only two genders and she is being called racist and sexist (they love their buzzwords so much that they don't even use them properly anymore, severely trivializing the severity of the actual word). Watch firefighter training videos for proof. I recall one that showed a female firefighter coming up to a weighted door, it had enough pressure to simulate a door, but it was a hinge so it would roll down and the weight would reset it. The three men in front of her knocked it down no trouble, while she tried approximately four times before the instructor told her to go around.Feminists just can't accept that women aren't built for some jobs. They also can't accept that women aren't interested in some fields.

There aren't enough women in male dominated fields. Feminists are wanting to force quotas and force women into jobs whether they like it or not. They want women promoted because they are women instead of on the merit of their work. They don't realize that if you force a woman into a job she isn't familiar with or comfortable with then the work is going to suffer and the projects she is assigned to will be extremely slow going. The recent study also showed that women did poorly on the interview than men did, and of course this made feminists start arguing that the interview needed to be made easier. If you dumb down an interview to make it easier for people to get in then you will get people that can't actually do the job and again you will find your team, project, and company suffering. Sad part is that if you fire a woman, you get to worry about her claiming sexism (or racism) as to why they were fired.

Wage gap, this is another thing feminists preach about as proof of inequality. The wage gap is the median annual earnings for men and women. They use basic math and shoddy information to claim women make less than men. The math behind that is they take the median annual earnings of all women, divide it by the median annual earnings of all men. This gap doesn't take into account important factors that flux the numbers like hours worked, holidays worked, insurance, 401k, share holder, et. al. Best example I can think of is a woman I worked with in retail, she had worked at the company for 15 years, but due to family health she worked less hours than me to be with her husband more and took holidays off while I worked 40+ hours a week, worked holidays, and even came in on days off to help if someone was sick. I made minimum wage while she was making $14 or so an hour, yet our yearly earnings (using the wage gap math) would make her earning less than me for every dollar I earned because that is another factor the gap doesn't take into account, new workers versus veteran workers. I don't even think it takes into account different jobs within each field pay differently as a pediatrician gets paid less than a surgeon in the medical field.

Women are equal to men politically and work wise. The difference comes with the way they view the industry and their interests. For example, as I pointed out, there have been a lot of successful women in the tech field that have not had any experience of sexism that would be great to hold up as role models to encourage girls and other women to get into the industry, instead the media wants to hype up one or two claims that makes the entire tech field look sexist and effectively scare away any woman that is interested in tech or STEM for that matter. After all, Brianna Wu made a single, mediocre game with Unreal (Revolution 60) and Zoey Quinn made a rather lackluster game (used that word loosely) in Twine that was basically a story with hyperlinks (90s web site) loaded in an executable, but they're the two (with Anita) being sold as "the game industry hates women and these are the women fighting it" narrative.

Women are equal to men, but apparently not equal to each other. Kaley Cuoco stated publicly that she liked the traditional gender roles, she liked cooking for her husband. Feminists attacked her until she apologized. Matt Taylor wore a shirt designed by his female friend that depicted women in sexy poses, and feminists drowned out the accomplishment of landing a craft on a comet because they were too busy being offended by his choice of clothing so much so that he had to appear on television crying to apologize to the dipshits. This is the problem, we are raised to feel guilty for upsetting women and apologize for it. That is why anyone fighting feminists are viewed as bad because they are going against what we are taught. That is why feminism has been able to attack people without being called on it, because even when they are the attackers, people still view them as the victims. Feminism has run its course in the US and now the women that identify as feminists are mostly whining because they aren't getting special treatment. I've said it time and time again, if you are truly for equality across the board then you are an egalitarian, if you are seeking that equality by only viewing from the angle of women then you are a feminist, if you are seeking that equality by only focusing on men then you are wrong too.

Feminist want everyone to listen to a woman and believe her claims with no evidence. This thread shows that everyone does that just fine. Look at the feminist outrage when the police pointed out the UVA Rape was false. They started saying the chief was sexist and accused them of promoting "rape culture". Even when facts came out proving the claim was rubbish, they were still getting mad because they didn't just believe the woman and arrest the men she claimed did it, and put them in prison. Just like this, in the court of pubic opinion, people don't want facts, they read something and let their emotions dictate their actions. Facts come out bringing her claim into question and they still refuse to stop believing her. Seems everyone blindly think women can't or don't lie.

The only ones that don't allow women to have choices are other women. Because every time a woman make a choice that another woman doesn't like they attack them for it. For example, Anita Sarkeesian, the poster child for feminism right now, appeared on a panel saying choice feminism was bad and that the choice a woman makes for herself somehow effects all women as a whole (guess that means she is Butterfly Effect Feminism?).

If feminism wants to show it truly cares about women then they need to stop complaining about first world problems and focus on Saudi women and other women that get killed for voicing their opinion or wanting an education. I mean, Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head just because she wanted to get an education. Yet women in the US think an alleged 77 cents pay gap is more important than that? Screw that! The US is borderline Utopian for women compared to other countries that treat their women like cattle to be bought, sold, and slaughtered.

Why spend the time making a lengthy post full of anecdotes, quips, vague statements? And most of all, you provide absolutely no supporting evidence.

It would be quicker to make a shorter post with concrete statements and supporting evidence. Evidence from credible sources, I should add.

I will address your post when I have time. Recently, I've devoting a lot of time on an innovative, novel project that is showing incredible progress and has amazing possibility...

I don't watch videos (they're a terrible format for evidence), but I'll bear it since you're a positive person who takes actual effort to reply and I thus I enjoy discussing things with you.

Why give evidence? You and everyone else has already shown that when faced with facts you chose to still blindly believe a lie.

Fact: No BigBro442 existed until after her article.
Response: He committed deplorable behavior!
Seems like being offended by behavior of a ghost is close to pearl clutching.

Wage Gap: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof.-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcQ7cA1I62w
http://www.dailydot.com/irl/gamergate-porn-home-invasion/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4s4pZNMq3Q

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/femicide-rise-central-america-article-1.1552233

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/img/highlights/Femicide-RN14-fig2.pdf

Of course a specter would say that about ghosts

Difference is that I actually exist and any offensive behavior I exhibit is real. I'm not the fabrication of a unknown woman created to paint gamers in a negative light before she disappears from the internet.

No offence, but sometimes I get the impression that's exactly what you are. Too much of what you write seems too insane to be written by an actual person, unless it was done to paint male gamers in a bad light.

This is a terrible statement. You're being very rude for no reason.

You say this but don't provide evidence. For example, the NPR piece I linked to previously has the developers of the game commenting on the issue as if BigBro442 exists. Why should I trust you over them?

I agree that the earnings gap is due to choices made by women and men. I'm aware the women tend to negotiate less, work less, and retire earlier.

But that's the thing: why do women make these choices? Is it social pressures? E.g., do women make these same choices in other cultures, or because of the social roles that women are caretakers and thus should tend the household, or something else? On the other hand, is it as a result of some intrinsic nature of the physiological differences between men and women? Most importantly, is the status quo (women earning less due to choices) acceptable or not?

Simply saying "that's the way of things" is not acceptable.

I'm not watching the videos.

...

I watched it. It was very poorly done.

The process of choosing party nominees has always been shaky and could hardly be called fair at any point in recent history (see summary p. 2-3).

In the video, the narrator discusses an article from Observer.com. (He didn't provide a link to the article, which I find irritating). I immediately was concerned about the objectivity of the outlet upon viewing the front page. Its publisher is Jared Kushner, who Trump's son-in-law and helped Trump's digital campaign tremendously (see here). There is an obvious bias here.

It claims the charter was violated. Firstly, that's not illegal. Secondly, I can't find out what bylaws were exactly violated. I'm sure it has to do with the leaders of the party actively working with Clinton, but a quick search only leads to articles claiming the same thing without citing specific bylaws.

I think the DNC had less to do with favoring the lifelong Democratic Clinton and more to do with disliking the lifelong independent Sanders. A classic "us vs them" sort of thing.

This is just a terrible rhetorical tactic with no substance. It assumes way too much about a simple gesture.

What? This is nonsense.

He is claiming Clinton being polite and friendly to those around her is a negative thing. He provides no reasoning as to why. That's absurd. (Personally, her friendliness made her more likable to me, and I'm still not even going to vote for her!)

He frames the situation wrong, as well. The media benefits from Clinton--she's socially liberal, but otherwise conservative (i.e., a neocon). The media is socially liberal (with few exceptions), but otherwise benefits greatly from increasingly laissez-faire markets in order to generate profits. See: Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. It comes in documentary form, though I have not watched it.

No evidence provided.

Frankly, the media desires profit, and Trump's antics provide viewership and thus profit.

- Funding ISIS: I'm not up-to-par on diplomatic relations, but I fear publicly shaming Saudi Arabia and "doing something" would be incredibly undesirable, considering Saudi Arabia's position in the Middle East and within the oil industry.

- Hating Americans: I don't see evidence of Clinton "hating Americans." Is he denying there is a sizable portion of Trump's base that is bigoted? Trump's policies and statements include: building a wall (xenophobic, racist), banning Muslims from entering the country (Islamphobic, arguably racist if it extends to stereotypical images of Muslims [e.g., Arabs/Persians]), fabricated statistics about blacks (racist), and mountain of sexist statements about women.

- His criticism of Clinton's campaign contributions apply to almost every single candidate to ever run. Why doesn't he include Donald Trump's donors as a comparison? Maybe because it would show there's nothing out of the ordinary?

- He claims Clinton is lying about her position to get money out of politics, but he doesn't provide any evidence other than "she received campaign donations."

- He claims the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from countries like Saudia Arabia is terrible, but doesn't provide any proof, only assumptions and speculation.

- I tried researched links between donations and actions made by Clinton, but found nothing worth a pinch of salt. I did find some interesting info from Politifact that shows the Foundation is boring and statements in the video about places like Arabia are incorrect or misleading. Saudi Arabia didn't provide donations while she was in office, for example.

Look, I'm not voting for Clinton. She will continue similar policies to benefit the 0.1% at the cost of everyone else. But I think Trump is a disgusting human who is by no means qualified to hold any office. And not like third party is any better: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein hold crazy beliefs and promote unworkable and disastrous policies. I would have voted for Sanders, like I did in the primary.

But this hate Clinton gets is unwarranted. She is no worse than Barack Obama, or George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Bush Sr, or Reagan. I have to wonder if the hatred comes from her actions, or from the fact she was a First Lady who had a successful career in politics before and after her husband's presidency? I fear it's the latter.

I look forward to it, and thanks for the compliment If you click through to Youtube, then he usually links his sources in the description. Maybe that's even enough and you will be able to find enough material without watching the video (I haven't checked).

Since you mentioned that piece, I had a look at it myself. I don't see any evidence that the developers checked if the user exists. However, I also don't think they dealt with it badly: the story was written fairly believably as far as I could tell (I just found the word "misogyny" inaccurate, and blink and you miss that one). Why should they bother checking if they feel (probably quite rightly) that they can improve their game?

The rest of the article is a mixed bag. I spotted a few alarm bells, as follows:

This all sounded reasonable until the introduction of the word "sexist". Sexual yes, not sexist. Trying to define things on the fly here (which is always risky), sexist is when you bring sex (gender) into a decision (such as recruitment at McDonald's) where it doesn't belong. I would say merely taking a sexual interest in someone and then making severe social etiquette violations over it is not sexist. The article then claims that "At the heart of the issue is a historical trend of exclusivity in a male-dominated space, Fox says," and here I feel as if all gamers are being tarred with the brush of one class of offenders.

After that, the article goes on to talk about Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian. Anita cherry-picks games in an attempt to call sexism and objectification, and even then, her examples are terrible (personal observation), so I'm not surprised she gets a lot of criticism. There's also a video of her admitting that she doesn't play games. I won't go into any other points on these people since I don't have sources to hand, just to say that I got the impression the allegations against them were valid, and they are examples of people who are known for their victimhood, not for a great game they've made or something.

Finally, this paragraph stuck in my craw:

56% is a large number, but there isn't a number next to the sexism claim. It could be 0.01% for all we know. I don't like the guilt by association tactic.

I observed more women on my computer science course than I have in the industry. Based on personal experience, I think it's because many saw it as a financially profitable field to go into, but they didn't have the wasted childhood tinkering with those early computers that were built for programming, so they started at a disadvantage. In any case, many of them had just taken on the 25% option as part of some other course, and then dropped it after the first year. So there's that.

Anyway, yeah - overall impressions: article reveals an agenda in the way it's written, so therefore, I would take other points with a pinch of salt and look for the opposing viewpoint for comparison (though that's not necessarily Specter or bambams ). For myself I've already done that, but it's obviously down to you to do that in your own way and reach your own conclusions. I only became aware of all these divisive topics because I randomly decided to search YouTube one day for people I could make fun of, and got addicted. It's definitely downtime stuff for me, which is why it ends up being YouTube

I edited my post about the first video.

I definitely agree. Especially with the points you highlighted (Zoe Quinn et al, workplace sexism, etc).

I just brought it up because I knew it would rile up bamccaig and Spectre Phoenix if they read it. Kind of like the "Women and Women First" skits from a show I watch, Portlandia:

Personally, I primarily receive news from BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera. It provides three somewhere-around-objective viewpoints that each have their own specific flaws and strengths.

Why would I take offense to it? Taking offense to someone's remarks about me would imply I care about what they think of me.

Truth and facts are sometimes rude for those who try to ignore them.

Steam is the only place you can get QuiVR, Gameranx EIC showed that the username didn't show up at the time of the article being released. All the NPR piece shows is that, like you, the devs blindly believed her claim and implemented a fix for it. This sounds like the UVA story all over again. The woman accused several guys at a specific fraternity of raping her (had no rape kit done to verify her claim). Upon investigating the police found flaws in her story, like the fraternity didn't have a party at the time she claimed, among other things. In this case the woman accused a specific user of horrible conduct, but upon trying to find him and break his anonymity so the person could be held accountable there was nothing to be found. Bigbro442 appears to be made up just like how feminists love calling male gamers GamerBro, Sander supporters SanderBro, Trump supporters TrumpBro (and as of late Trumpkins), or just the basic DudeBro.

You agree they make their own choices, but then pull the rug out by making it sound like their choices aren't actually theirs?

It's okay, I understand if you don't want to risk too many differing views at once. Youtube is a great place to find differing views, as well entertainment.

I don't believe in free will. Our choices our the culmination of billions of years of cause and effect. They have no more freedom behind them than does a rock's freedom to roll off a mountain due to weathering and gravity and other forces. Choice is an illusion.

For example, I think criminals are also victims, and society is an enabler in criminal behavior and thus at fault. Funny.

Call me what you want. I identify as socialist, feminist, nihilist, humanist, and others.

Also, this is you:

{"name":"sheeple.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332.png","w":376,"h":401,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332"}

You don't believe in free will? So you picked your day job due to billions of years of cause and effect?

Yes. And yes.

Then how do I know your arguments are your own and not part of the billions of years of cause and effect (brainwashing is what I've seen feminist call it)?

Anita Sarkeesian agrees with you though (It's about the hive mindset and not choice):
{"name":"Cwlvo-0UkAAjwWm.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/f\/3f5a52309c534e4d3011471d0503612a.jpg","w":599,"h":668,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/f\/3f5a52309c534e4d3011471d0503612a"}

That's the impression I get from most "Pro-#GamerGate" articles (and therefore Mr. Phoenix's posts in threads like this) that are posted. Someone does something mean and terrible and they're at arms to "defend it" by lashing out at everyone who sees the it as mean and terrible, and suggesting there is some sort of collective agenda behind it or that these people are conspiring in some way.

These terrible people are often only found in online settings, because the anonymity allows them to behave that way and expose their rotten innards without having to identify themselves.

Probably not fun to play games with, they're the ones who are bullying women when they identify as female, target them with sexual comments, etc. If you've spent any time in multiplayer games you've seen this, but if not, you're probably participating in it and are oblivious to what you're doing behind that mask.

Think about it. The brain, like everything else, is made out of tiny little particles. They're bound to follow the same laws as everything else. How are you different? If you believe the world is physical, free will is merely an illusion.

Of course it is. Weren't you shaped by your parents' beliefs and actions? Your environment? The millions of little events that shaped your life? Or do you believe you can act outside of all of this? Of course the world is deterministic. If it wouldn't be, it would be random. You think randomness is free will? If the entire Universe has to follow the laws of cause and effect, why not you? Are you somehow different? How?

I find it a sad state of affairs to think that everything is predetermined. A world without free will is kind of pointless.

You still have "free" will. You're still doing what you want to do. Nobody is forcing you to do otherwise. It's just that you're not free to decide what you will. Is this not obvious? You're shaped by your education, upbringing, genetics, environment, etc. You won't simply decide "OK, I'm going to stop believing in God, give up on Eagle GUI, move to Alaska and start living off the grid" will you? Your intuition is telling you that you could, but that's really not true. Something would have to cause it first. Every decision you took in your life was caused by something. We could hypothetically track every one of them as a response in your brain to external stimuli.

Determinism doesn't take away your ability to affect the world. It empowers you. The opposite is randomness. Is that better? Every action in your life being the result of a coin flip? Yeah, I didn't think so.

When people talk about free will, they usually mean agency. And yes, we still have that. We respond to the environment to the best of our abilities to make our situation better. No doubt.

But actual free will? Like, I'm able to make a decision that ignores all my previous conditioning? Hard to believe if you know anything about how the physical world and thus how the brain works...

Peoples' life experience makes them predisposed to make certain choices, but the choices are theirs to make nonetheless.

In that case, my previous conditioning is to hate programmers, games, music, and movies due to a majority of my family having the view that all violence is connected to them. So my previous conditioning should have my views as a complete 180 and saying games/movies/music need to be more inclusive and Rap, violent games, et. al. should be banned to end or at least lower violence. This preconditioning should have been nurtured due to all the "studies" that came out claiming to prove just that.

No, that's not how determinism works.

Another ideal that forgives rapists, murderers, child molesters et. al. for their actions.

And #Gamergaters, too.

Nothing to forgive. FBI already investigated and determined there was nothing credible about the allegations against the hashtag. Because of that Wu and others are claiming GamerGate secretly infiltrated the FBI.

Though, I do love the game media/anti-GG coverage of GamerGate as two years ago the movement was just a few "obtuse shit-slingers living in their mom's basement" and now we are so powerful that we influence the sales of Ghostbusters, control the FBI, and apparently are the reason Trump won the primaries and edging toward winning the Presidency.

Trump did well because he appealed to the long-suppressed anger of bigots, not because of GamerGate.

Racism, sexism, and xenophobia never died out because the laws changed. Trump appeals to the the populist notions ("make America great again", as compared to when? The 60s? The 70s? The 80s?) that enable bigotry and incites a nationalistic fervor much like historical and contemporary populists before him. He simply gave them an outlet to vocalize their hate publicly.

GameGate is nothing compared to the prejudism that still permeates American society.

And the best part is that it doesn't really matter what the crazy extreme feminists think, or what the crazy extreme anti-feminists think because nobody else cares. Even my two flatmates, who do almost nothing but play games have never even heard of gamer gate.

You wouldn't think that reading game media sites. They have turned GG into such a huge boogeyman that you would think we were on the same plane as Skull and Bones Secret Society. According to feminist bloggers, because gamers are "mostly white cis heterosexual males, they control everything and chase all women out of their boys only club".

I know nobody cares. Reminds me of a certain poem. They likely won't care until every game they play gives them multiple objectives where you get dialogues you can't skip about how to treat women, how to treat minorities, how people need to be inclusive, how you should feel horrible for liking violent games, et. al. Well, they [AAA companies] don't care about what gamers (their consumers) think, a lot of AAA devs met with Anita and praised the ideas she had for changing games. This is a woman that has repeatedly made it clear she wants games like Super Mario and Legend of Zelda to never be made again. She is the poster child of Feminism for the past three years, a woman that promotes a hive mindset instead of a woman's choice.

That just tells me they don't look at any game review sites or media because GG is regularly brought up in articles or flat out blamed for some new atrocity. NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Kotaku, and Polygon are obsessed with blaming GG for something. Gamespot, IGN, and PCGamer even had articles about them a few times. Hell, some critics have blamed GG for why they didn't have the guts to criticize Anita's videos (as touched on in this article).

That's why my news is collected from three large publishers (NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera) and assorted minor outlets, but not game media websites.

You might want to do the same.

I know NPR covered GamerGate as did BBC and Al Jazeera, but the later two have had many question their ethics because of one sided coverage of it (I think that was more BBC than Al Jazeera, as the video below does have a segment of pro-gg talking; first one I've seen in the two years it has gone on). The media claims they can't talk to anyone in GamerGate because they are all anonymous, which is a lie because I've contacted all the media outlets explaining that I'm a supporter of it and use my real face and name on my Twitter account. I'm not alone, Mark Kern, Derek Smart, Shoe0nHead, Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, Total Biscuit, and many others are open about who they are, but the media still claimed we are anonymous and unable to talk to them.

One video above that you refused to watch pointed out flaws with Al Jazeera coverage of GamerGate.

Maybe the difference is I care about a broader range of issues than you do?

I read Al Jazeera because it's more critical of America than BBC/NPR while not being nutty like RT.

No the difference is that you and everyone else don't care that sites that are supposed to be promoting games to the consumers (gamers), instead spend their time writing articles shitting on their reader base. Being a hobbyist game dev I take issue with that.

That was my pushing point as to why I became pro-GG. The issue then became AAA devs flat out told any indie dev or hobbyist like myself that we are black listed for siding with the gamers.

Aaron, thanks for going through that video for me - you're quite right about many things that I just didn't check. Sargon is good at sounding reasonable - do you think it's possible he even has the right intentions but is unaware of his own biases?

Interestingly, if you search YouTube for "reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton", you find video after video of piss-takes from people who clearly don't think there's any reason to vote for her, and no videos genuinely highlighting any positives or even any anti-Trump reasons. Why would that be - have YouTube's search algorithms just gained momentum in that specific direction? I found it difficult not to read into it that at least heavy Internet users have firmly come down on the side of Trump. Interestingly this even goes against the statement I heard somewhere that big corporations like Google are unfairly promoting pro-Hillary results in their searches. I can't figure it all out - life's too short. (But you seem to enjoy it!) Does YouTube just contain a lot of people who aren't doing too well in life and are therefore anti-establishment because it must be someone else's fault and anything's better than the status quo (even Trump)?

So, on the subject of Trump, I do want to point a few things out:

Building a wall - I think when it comes to border controls, the position countries like the US take is that there are lots of people who want to get in for understandable reasons, more than who want to go the other way, but the infrastructure couldn't take it if everyone went. Therefore, there has to be a system to limit the number (probably based on who can contribute most to the economy or who has special interpersonal reasons such as a relationship), and the wall must just be a way to enforce the border. This is just me playing devil's advocate and my point is that it isn't fair just to immediately label it xenophobic and racist (even if, on further inspection, it is - I don't know).

Islam is a complex topic. The impression I've got is that Islam coincides (for whatever reason) with many of the countries with the worst human rights records, and therefore, a lot of Muslims come over with views (e.g. on women as property) that are incompatible with Western laws and culture. Of course every person is different, but while there are some who are happy to change their views and integrate, there are many who aren't. This is exacerbated by the propensity everyone has to call "racist" and "Islamophobic" at every opportunity (and by the way, "racist" isn't accurate since people are judging the religion/culture/politics, not the skin colour). Hence we have the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, where a culture of child abuse continued for several years because (allegedly) officers were afraid of being accused of racism if they upheld the law.

So the big question for me is: just how many of the public are bigots as many accuse, and how many of them are actually experiencing a culture clash where they feel their side and their country's values are not being recognised? I can't answer that question because I live in the Cambridge area which is a total bubble. Some other parts of the UK are supposed to have these problems, but honestly - I don't know. And I know a lot less than that about the US.

Fabricated statistics about blacks - you mean this? Not something I'd seen. Wow, that's special. Now in fairness, again, I heard there is a trend of black people being poorer, forming cohesive families less successfully, and committing more crime (amongst themselves), and obviously we should be 1. not judging individuals based on this trend and 2. doing what we can to help them break out of the destructive cycles some of them are in. I don't think it would be racist to point this out (yet some say it is), but those made-up statistics are on a whole new level. Did he mean it or was he trolling?

Finally the alleged sexism: I assume this sums it up pretty well. Now mostly I think he's being outrageous, and mostly I also think he's targeting specific people he doesn't like. He's obviously not above using attractiveness or stereotypes in those situations. I'd agree that in an ideal world, you want someone in office who is a little more careful, but I wonder if what he's doing here is really just standup comedy of sorts? And has he ever talked as if his policies might disadvantage women?

Yeah. I guess I bought into the narrative of Trump as something else, anything else, to break up a corrupt establishment, but I don't really know. Maybe that's accurate but then we'd just have a different corrupt establishment...? Or maybe he'd just be so incompetent that he'd be impeached in a month, and then what?

I think most people have the right intentions, and I extend this to bamccaig and Spectre Phoenix. It's just they have immense biases they refuse to acknowledge.

(Note: I have a great many biases too. It's not possible to evaluate everything objectively).

I ran a test on this myself when the quote news unquote broke: http://pastebin.com/5FFq0uDf

It was immediately obvious there was no bias.

Oh, I completely understand. There's a difference between border control and immigration policies and the claims that Mexico is sending rapists, or that Mexicans are taking our jobs. The wall is driven by nationalistic and xenophobic fears. The rhetoric is what matters.

Definitely. It's just a lot of fears are simply based on non-existent threats. Muslim immigrants seeking asylum from war torn countries undergo an extreme vetting process. Terrorists are not getting through, and to be fair, a lot of innocents wouldn't either.

The categorization for Muslim is racially and ethnically driven. I've witnessed people calling Obama Muslim. Why is that, if not for his name and skin color? Why are Sikhs the victims of hate crimes supposedly targeting Muslims? (Not that anyone should be a target of a hate crime).

Frankly, I don't know. I also hold the belief that we can evaluate actions by their outcomes, and non-racist actions can have racist outcomes and vice versa. For example, affirmative action is a racist action that has a positive, non-racist outcome, while eliminating 'forced busing' to save costs is a neutral action with a racist outcome (increased segregation in schools).

Yes. The issues blacks face is still unprecedented. That's why Black Lives Matter is a thing, and why antagonistic statements like All Lives Matter are disingenuous.

I was genuinely shocked when I saw numbers on wealth among white and black Americans. This is an okay source. The biggest one, personally: "The report found that in 2013, white households in the U.S. had a median wealth of $144,200 -- almost 13 times the median wealth of black households at $11,200."

We'd get Mike Pence, who is also another disgusting person. At least Trump isn't against LGBT. And unlike Trump, Pence isn't an outsider to the GOP. No, Pence, like Cruz, is the modern GOP in human form.

Yeah, right. Maybe not openly, but I bet he hates them just as much as he hates Mexicans and Blacks.

What?

Like the bias of only paying attention to liberal news media while arguing liberal view points?

Are you using liberal as an insult? Are BBC and Al Jazeera liberal? And did you know I am so far to the left that the views expressed in NPR are closer to Fox News than they are to my own?

This piece, "Are We Wrong to Think We're Right?", is very interesting. You might want to listen. In fact, anyone participating in this discussion might want to.

From my understanding, when you use liberal as an insult one does "liberal" in quotes to imply they aren't really liberal.

NPR, BBC, and Al Jazeera have all admitted to having liberal bias.

Was willing to listen until I saw it was TED Talks, then I didn't care. TED Talks lost any influence on me when one year a woman said women made up over 50% of managerial positions just to come back the next year claiming there wasn't enough women in managerial positions.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater much?

That's not fair. Those comments come from people who have seen ridiculous BLM protests, of which there is apparently no shortage. Take the Heathrow one for example: whatever your cause, obstructing a highway and interfering with uninvolved people's plans is unlikely to be justified, and it's not as if anti-black sentiment is tolerated anyway in this country, so what are they trying to achieve - if not to exalt black people as far as possible and trample on white people, or even just because it's an easy movement to associate with if they're looking for something, anything, to fight for and give their lives meaning?

Point being: yes, there are problems in black communities that need solving, but Black Lives Matter doesn't seem to be going the right way about fixing it, unless you can show otherwise? So of course people are going to speak out against what they see of BLM.

More general point: when we drill down into these points, we tend to find common ground, but I feel as if we're constantly starting from a position that involves using the classic labels (racism, sexism, Islamophobia and so on), and I don't enjoy constantly trying to rein it in and suggest a more balanced view. Can't we just treat people as individuals and stop with the opportunistic labelling?

[EDIT]
I mean it - disingenuous is a very serious accusation as it refers to deliberate deception, and you just used it on a large group of people who absolutely have the best intentions. Something's not right there.

Of course. Not surprised at all. You're a model of reason and open-mindedness after all.

I was referring specifically to the statement "All Lives Matter." In other words, the marginalization of a major issue facing a minority (blacks being substantially more likely to be victims of police violence) because the same happens to others, including the majority (whites are also victims of police violence).

A metaphor would be death from breast cancer. Women are diagnosed with breast cancer at a far, far higher rate than men, but men actually have a higher fatality rate (albeit marginally). At a hypothetical Male Lives Matter breast cancer awareness event, is it proper for women to shut down men by saying "all breast cancer patients matter?" Surely not?

I agree Black Lives Matter overall is not well organized and many protests have done more harm than good. It seems to be par with the course for modern protests (Occupy Wallstreet, for example), even though you'd think with technology, mobilization and logistics would be on point.

I don't quite understand. If someone says X group is inferior (e.g., implications that women are less capable than men, as stated in this thread by certain members), what am I to call it?

Well I could hate it for what one liberal said about them: "TED Talks is just a conference for rich liberals to circle jerk themselves and present ideas without challenge."

At least I stated they contradict themselves from one year to the next. It's a broad statement, but at least it was achieved from watching TED Talks on Youtube for a few years.

Says the liberal who only pushes liberal media and refuses to view anything outside of those liberal sites. Even when I linked to Chris Ray Gun's (who is liberal) video pointing out flaws in Al Jazeera's coverage of GamerGate during one of their videos, you refused because it wasn't one of your sites.

So you are using liberal as an insult! In 120 words, you used 'liberal' 6 times. I managed 4 in 59 words. Beat that.

I refuse to watch videos. There's a difference.

I'm a liberal of the "seize the means of production" kind, not the comfortable middle-class kind. You are aware liberal is a very broad label?

Better question is why do you keep taking it as an insult? I'm just using the proper label for both you and the sites political leanings.

Difference is you make yourself seem like you are full of shit. "I don't watch videos...here watch this video I like that preaches what I believe!"

You don't say! I thought there was a factory in Washington, DC that had a cookie cutter marked liberal that you all came from! I'm so glad you cleared that up, it's like the people who identify as the label are as varied as the populace of the United States.

But it's an audio recording? With a transcript?

Do you know the NPR stands for National Public Radio? They don't transmit videos over radio.

I didn't even know there was a video on the page because of the add-ons I have.

Careful, according to feminist you are mansplaining. You just became part of the problem, you must be a secret agent of the patriarchy! Is this the point where, because you disagree with me I whine about harassment?

Actually, I would consider it unreasonable to reject evidence because of the format it is in. There are probably a lot of good reasons to reject the evidence, but that isn't one of them.

Videos often provides no sources, use rhetorical tricks over genuine substance, and inherently are hostile to efficient querying/skimming. Not to mention I provide Google revenue and personal data by watching them.

To be blunt, you would not use a random YouTube video as a source in any remotely serious debate.

I watched the video Bruce Perry linked to earlier, and it simply concreted my hostility towards videos as a discussion format. There was 5 minutes of content explained over 30 minutes. Absurd!

{"name":"drinking-moonshine.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/f\/cf0a59e8186c8a29c66db91297dc293b.gif","w":400,"h":224,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/f\/cf0a59e8186c8a29c66db91297dc293b"}

The problem with this country is that the party lines are no longer blurred. What I mean by that is that liberals and conservatives used to make up both parties and would reach across the isle to get legislation passed. There used to be Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats, but over the years (since LBJ I believe) the lines have started to have a clear divide of Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

Best example was the Democratic sit-in over gun violence. Instead of trying to find common ground with Republicans they did the sit-in. Nothing got done and they came in the next day like nothing ever happened.

I'm all for women's rights, but I think the focus needs to be on Saudi women and other women who have zero rights.

My view is that, in the US, women are equal to men (now biologically they will never be equal due to reproductive organs and the types of health issues that affect one gender and not the other) and in fact get more special treatment or perks than men. With abortion, women have all the rights and men have none; if a man and woman have sex, the man wants the child and the woman decides she doesn't, she can abort it and this applies to husbands and wives too as I remember a story three or four years ago where a woman had aborted a few pregnancies and the husband thought it was his fault they couldn't have kids because the wife wasn't telling him she was aborting them. Women, on average, get lighter sentences than men who commit the same crimes. Women win custody of kids and alimony more often than men. Nearing the end of 2016, and while women can fight in combat units, they still are not required to sign up for the draft (and this point actually had feminists fighting to keep it from passing saying it was sexist to require women to sign up for the draft).

If women are making choices about pay, work, etc. based on billions of years of conditioning, that isn't a women's rights issue, it is more a psychological issue. Feminist calls this brainwashing, so to undo it you have to change the conditioning which means you would have to force parents to change their roles, well the roles they see as problematic as I've not seen too much blow back over the male gender roles of mowing the lawn twice a week, fixing things that break, car repair, etc.; rather I see blow back over female gender roles: cooking, cleaning, taking care of kids, etc. This is one reason people don't view feminism as an equality movement anymore because it focuses solely on women and pretty much ignores men, unless it is asking men to be an ally to women.

Movies, music, comics, novels, cartoons, and video games (all media) are supposed to be form of artistic expression designed to entertain people. Everyone is going to get offended about something, but why are we expected to change (self censor) it due to those that are offended? It's not a matter of not having the balls to say no, it goes back to the conditioning because we are told repeatedly growing up that we aren't supposed to offend people or hurt their feelings, etc. Think about it, if you say exactly what you are thinking, it is called not having a filter between you brain and mouth because we are expected to sugar coat and not be blunt about things. Even Aaron showed that by starting his statement with "To be blunt," giving a person fair warning that the next part may not be something the like and to avoid it.

What Jordan described in her article is sexual harassment, clearly. The problem is that it is difficult to believe any woman and her claims because of all the women that lied about rape, harassment, and assault. It also is difficult because of the fact that so many feminists improperly use words and use them so much that it removes the severity the word(s) used to hold. Like disagreeing with them, a lot of feminist claim is harassment, makes harassment lose its true meaning. The Hugh Mungus incident where the woman claimed they were harassing her and what not are also stealing any severity the word once held.

It's easy to say "Just ignore the extreme feminists" like Wu, Quinn, Sarkeesian, Cross, etc., but the issue ultimately comes in the fact that the media holds them up like deities and deliver their message like it is fact. Sarkeesian is a good example of this phenomenon, her videos lie about games to push her agenda. Gamers pointed out she was wrong and even explained that the games she used to try and lambaste games in order to sell her claim for that video showed she hadn't played them, was wrong about what she said and shouldn't be taken serious. Games media instead praised her for pointing out all the things, claimed she was right, and begged devs to stop making games for "white cis male gamers, and instead focus on aiming at female gamers". The reason #NotYourShield sprang up was because black, Asian, trans, gay, lesbian, male, and female gamers wanted to make it clear to developers that Anita and the feminist critics and games journalists didn't speak for them. The result was devs making GamerGate and NotYourShield jokes during gaming events like GDC or the recent Blizzcon.

As long as the extremist feminists get all the air time to sell the anti-male views they have, the movement will continue to lose its push and scare women away thinking it is a movement that hates men. Just like those same feminists have people believing the MRAs are woman hating men.

I'm not a fan of videos myself (and let's face it, they are directed towards people who can't be bothered to read), but to say all videos are useless as a source of information just because the majority are is illogical.

You wanted SP to provide you with evidence to back up his claims, and he did. At least dismiss the video based on it's merits (or lack of them), rather than dismissing it out of hand. THAT would be the reasonable thing to do in an argument based on logic.

You're right, I wouldn't. But if my opponent did, and I was serious about the argument, I'd watch it, just so I could rip it apart

I am more than willing to bend that 'rule' of mine if the person I'm responding to is reasonable and civil.

But some members aren't like that. When proven wrong, they just ignore it or attack me. Why bother putting in more effort than I do when they put in none themselves?

Are you saying that you find the statement "All Lives Matter" disingenuous, but not the people who say it (who are just misinformed)? For me, disingenuous is very much an adjective for describing people, not statements...

By the way, is it right that most of the black deaths protested by BLM were situations where the man in question was armed, was lunging at a police officer at the time, etc., and very few of them are genuine cases of police brutality? I don't know, I just vaguely recall something along these lines. So in that case, the BLM protesters really are way off the mark, and the other issue - of black communities needing a leg up in some way - isn't getting addressed or even awareness raised about it, so criticising the statement "All lives matter" would then be trying to address a symptom instead of the root cause...

If male breast cancer awareness protesters were blocking motorways, obstructing the course of university education, campaigning for female breast cancer patients to be left to die, and generally being nothing but overgrown children, then I think it would be quite understandable for the public to react the way they are reacting to BLM It's not a fair comparison because those campaigners are much better behaved.

I guess we're not disagreeing about this anyway - I'm just trying to defend the people who hold the "All lives matter" position since it clearly comes from people with their heart in the right place. If you want to challenge it, you're better off raising the right kind of awareness yourself, not accusing people of being disingenuous (that'll just cause them not to listen to you).

Would you? A lot of the time, protesters just do it because they have nothing else to do. People who know how to use technology tend to choose different activities. (Personal opinion, I have no sources for this )

In those cases, call them sexist, racist, disingenuous or whatever applies. I just question whether they really applied in the cases you used them in, and the terms are getting a bit tired from overuse/misuse, something which I felt you were doing, so you have to be careful if you want to be taken seriously.

On another note, the guy whose video I got you to watch - he did an interview where he talked more about his views. It's completely an opinion piece and I won't put you through it. However, it's evident that he thinks Trump is boorish and doesn't know what Trump will do, but he also said he thinks Trump values people's attention and approval and will therefore listen to people, while Hillary will just do what she wants to further her own agenda. He also thinks that there's a culture war of politically correct / stifling of 'unapproved' opinions (establishment) versus wanting to be able to speak freely and voice all opinions without getting shut down for sexism/racism/buzzwords (Trump) - of course sexism isn't a good thing but silencing people from voicing such views is, in his opinion, unacceptable. He believes Trump winning would be a symbolic victory for the latter (a side which I have to say I identify with), that Trump won't manage to do much because every idea he wants to implement will be fought by other parts of the establishment, and that Hillary will on the other hand have everyone's support since she represents the establishment. Finally he talked about Hillary being the most informed person in the world about what's going on in the Middle East, and having had an opportunity to place a stable democracy in (I think) Libya just when it needed it, and having refused to do it, thereby putting a huge number of lives in peril over a long period. He acknowledged that Trump would probably accelerate the nuclear programme in the area, which isn't good either, but is potentially less bad than the kind of thing he says Hillary does. Again I'm afraid I have no sources for any of this, but he really seems to believe what he's saying and want the best for people, so... there we go.

You didn't prove me wrong and I didn't ignore it. Rather you showed that you don't even know what you are linking to as it is a video of Julia Galef on the TED stage talking with a presentation displayed on the screen behind her. I didn't say anything because I was willing to accept your plugin excuse. I've also not attacked you, but you do seem to be sensitive since you take me mentioning you are a Liberal as an insult. I've been called a liberal and conservative, but I don't take either as an insult. You are rather condescending though for assuming a person isn't smart enough to know what NPR stands for.

{"name":"610610","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/f\/7feffedc212ce3f38d8fae2fd44f5036.png","w":1294,"h":915,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/f\/7feffedc212ce3f38d8fae2fd44f5036"}

Where's the video? Do you see the audio bit in the corner? That's what I was referring to when I said "listen to the piece." You know, since I'd say "watch the video" if it were a video I was referring to.

Really?

What's that?

What's that?

What's that?

What's that?

What's that?

What's that?

What's that?

...

You sure love calling me ignorant.

1. Take an allegro.cc
2. Mix in a generous portion of milk
3. Liberally sprinkle Wotsits on top
4. ...
5. Profit? Or maybe power.

May want to stop using that plugin then.
{"name":"Fomg0qZ.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/f\/7f4b407886f3f46eb94720083ed16012.png","w":1366,"h":768,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/f\/7f4b407886f3f46eb94720083ed16012"}
Because of that plugin you missed out on her full TED Talk. Her TED Talk is under 12 minutes and the NPR segment is under 9 minutes and only plays two soundbites of the TED Talk if I remember right. The whole point of that page was to watch the TED Talk to get context of what the NPR segment was discussing.

Those, dear Aaron, are called truths. You demanded I give evidence of my claims, yet I didn't see you demand evidence of Jordan's claims. That is blindly believing her claims. Everyone condemned BigBro442's actions saying they were horrible, yet they ignore the fact that there has been no proof that he ever existed before the article.

Here is another truth, you seem to take everything as an attack on you personally.

Here's another truth. You have been rude to Aaron. You claim to not be attacking anyone personally, but repeatedly place blame on people for not supporting your beliefs. You've been rude to me, and I responded in kind, yet you avoid it by saying you weren't really talking about me, even when you were clearly referring to me, as you have been clearly referring to Aaron.

She could have been on LAN, she could have changed his name to protect his privacy, there could be reasons you can't find his username. His behavior is typical of multiplayer gamers. They think they can do anything because it's "not real".

So far all you've done is give examples of a few extremists and claim that they represent some kind of massive group conspiring against gamers. A few lone wolf nutjobs does not a movement make.

Yes I'm rude, but we have established this years ago. All you did was show that you take them as attacks. I don't care if anyone support my beliefs (last I checked no one did anyways, but it doesn't stop me from expressing my beliefs).

That is actually an attack I received simply telling a guy I disagreed with his assessment of me being "an egg-headed lard ass nerd with no life".

You have a point, guess we could disable chat so it removes the verbal harassment and implement in game safe spaces so the players can't get more than a car distance from you.

You're right, I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.

You made me realize I should give her a benefit of doubt. I'm being pig headed. I'm sorry for "attacking" you and Aaron.

Now you're just being sore because we disagree with you. If you want to have a civil discussion, maybe you should try being civil and stop attacking people. Otherwise all your hysteria will get you is ignored. Too bad this thread is the most popular we've had in a while. Shows had sad the state of affairs at allegro.cc are these days.

You're being hysterical again. Not having any rules = free for all. Having rules = people responsible for their own actions. People like "BigBro442" shouldn't be allowed to partake in multiplayer online games because they can't control themselves. We need rules to govern what is proper behavior and what is not. The days of anything goes are coming to an end Specter. Cry about it if you want, but it won't bother me one bit.

No, I was being an insincere asshole. Don't care if you agree with me or not, just assumed that is what you wanted to hear. Guess not, oh well.

Careful Specter. Don't want you to ragequit allegro.cc again. You're such a positive contributing member, I'd hate to see you go.

Works both ways, doesn't it?

If that was true, you would have stopped posting a long time ago. You keep coming back, so you obviously do feel a need to make people listen to you.

Why? You know yourself that you're never going to convince the majority of people here who think you're views are inaccurate and dangerous. The result isn't going to change.

I believe Albert Einstein has a good quote about people who keep repeating the same exercise and expecting a different result.

Nah, I enjoy seeing people disagree with me. So long as I continue to argue like I believe what I'm saying, people will continue to argue. Discourse is a fascinating thing to me.

A word comes to mind reading that sentence.

So what you're saying is that you're a giant troll who's full of shit. Duly noted.

{"name":"tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/5\/3540e6c4f5c1d2cc998e46257e43e30f.gif","w":275,"h":210,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/5\/3540e6c4f5c1d2cc998e46257e43e30f"}

That was known about me the first time I 'ragequit' the site and came back. Thought I was busted a few times as I think it was you that pointed out I seemed too stereotypical for my arguments and really expected I was busted every time Edgar pointed out I was being hysterical.

I was going to push this discourse a little further, but realized after my last reply I had already done every typical reply and was going to be just repeating all the above arguments over again (which I think I did repeat some several times above).

Edgar and Aaron, this time I am being sincere, I apologize for having the stereotypical "asshole" stance the entirety of the thread. You both were right on your points and yes I was exaggerating my reactions intentionally. I actually feel bad that the reaction to Jordan's claims were that of disbelief to where she was chased off the internet. I also feel the devs did what was necessary to protect women playing the game in the future.

Discourse fascinates me because gender equality and social issues are the biggest hot button topics when they really shouldn't be. It is also fascinating to see people take something as an attack or an insult when it isn't there. Like liberal, I've never, until now, seen a person who is liberal take a person acknowledging them being liberal as an insult. When I wrote my comments I had no intent for them to be attacks on either of you, but you took them as attacks and for that I apologize.

American people want equality so bad that I broke 1/4 of the 1k signatures needed for a Change.org petition I started calling for the US flag to be redesigned to be more inclusive. It never broke 1/2 and was deleted after not making goal, but it was an eye opener.

The question needs raised, how do you have a serious discussion when many have the reactions I portrayed and refuse to budge on their views or, depending on the choice of communication, block you to maintain their little bubble. With everyone wanting safe spaces to keep from being challenged, how do you try to approach them when they have views that may be construed as wrong?

Even our political parties are heated like that. Fewer and fewer legislation is passed each year because the parties refuse to work together for the good of the nation.

Play Devil's Advocate long enough, and you end up doing his work for him. </2c>

Really though, why argue just for the sake of arguing? You seem to believe what you are saying though, and so I took you at face-value.

To see what techniques people use to deal with unruly people who refuse to budge on their view.

I deal with a lot of people like that and the only solution I was coming up with was to ultimately give up. I figured if I presented myself as the unruly person I would get an idea of different techniques to strike up a discussion. The main thing I saw was that you and Aaron, no matter how unruly I got stuck to your guns and just kept trying to open dialogue and presenting me with different views. What I took away form this is that of the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Seems the same is true for unruly people, you can present them with facts, but nothing will make them read it. Ultimately it will take their bubble popping to make them re-evaluate their views. So all I can do is keep presenting people with facts and hope that one day their views will change so that they stop ignoring them.

Aaron, I do ask that you disable your plugin to watch the TED Talk on the NPR page. It's an interesting video that adds to the NPR broadcast in my opinion. After watching and listening to it though, I just have to say..I'm still right .

Huh? You tried being an unruly person in order to establish that presenting you with facts wouldn't make you read the facts?

Now I've seen everything

Someone I know was just reading her FB feed, and one of her friend's coworkers (who is a Trump supporter) posted a comment saying "There go your rights, faggot!" This is what we have to look forward to now that Trump is president. 4 years of bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, and corrupt business practices profiting rich whites. I'd just like to take a moment and say Congratulations, everyone who voted for Trump. You got what you asked for.

I've done it on other forums with mixed results. Some sites just ban my account rather than engaging me with facts trying to change my views. Other sites left my account stay active, but banned the topics. Then sites, like this one, allowed the rants without a word.

I can't say the idea was an original idea though, it was actually planted in my head upon seeing a news segment about Norah Vincent and her experiment she did for her book Self-Made Man. She wanted to see the difference with men interaction with one another and the interactions with men and women so she dressed like and lived like a man. It was an interesting idea that got me to wondering about the reactions to the pearl clutching fear mongers that think some group is going to ruin their country or their hobby and ultimately was curious about the methods used to combat their delusions.

Look at the delusions from the election. People thought if Clinton won that Russia would go to war with the US. Logically if that had ever been a real problem Putin would have done so when he came to power or some time before now. People, my mother-in-law included, think that Trump will launch all our nukes like he has some sort of button in the oval office he can push. Gamers are letting their fear cloud their views and think feminists are going to ruin games. In the same breath you have people saying stupid things like "Games would be an art form if not for gamers."

Makes me wonder, can you battle delusions when they are founded by fear or does that make them so real to the person that they will never see them for the falsehood that it is?

My vote wouldn't have made a difference because I would have voted for Johnson. Some viewed voting for him a waste of a vote because "it took away from Clinton or Trump's chance to win".

I hate that line of thinking.

I didn't vote for any option. I took a leaf from Thoreau have been planning an alternative approach.

Unfortunately that's basically true. In our last election I was forced to vote for a candidate that I didn't like to prevent another party from gaining power. It wasn't the party nor the candidate that I wanted to vote for, but the person and party that I wanted to vote for had no chance of winning, even if everybody that wanted to vote for them did.

We're fighting to change our electoral system in Canada to solve that exact problem. Unfortunately, we depend on the people that were wrongly elected by the existing system to change it so fat chance that it will change. But at least they're talking about it which is a start.

Americans should be starting that same discussion. It seems even worse in the USA. Am I to understand that all of the "points" allocated to a state go to which "candidate" or "party" has the majority for that state? In other words, nearly an even number of people in Michigan voted for Trump and for Clinton, but (assuming their votes mattered) Trump would have gotten all of Michigan's points? Doesn't that sound like a terrible system? Are you fighting to change it?

Append:

Speak of the devil. I just got this in my inbox.

(Mind you, they shouldn't assume that everybody takes Trumps victory as a defeat; I find that offense )

Great job ruining this political thread with even more politics, guys.

That's why I like the system we have here. We have two votes, one for a local representative, and one for the party we want in charge. Since neither of the two major parties are big enough to reach a majority on their own, they have to form coalitions with smaller parties, which allows more representation for minorities.

The government is then formed from both the elected local MPs and list MPs nominated by the parties elected. The winning coalition then chooses a leader who becomes the Prime Minister. The coalition can replace the PM if they start acting against party interests.

This is the missing step I talk about.

HYPER-REALITY

That is a lot of product placement at ~38 seconds in.

Wouldn't the amount of information coming up on the display risk being a distraction and put the user at risk of accident?

That is probably the extreme. It will probably be a distraction for the current us but humans will adapt easily to that level of activity.