GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[mycophobia]

i just think it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games didnt have a fucking gamergate thread

[trap15]

i just think it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games didnt have a fucking gamergate thread

strongly agree

[Skykid]

The thread exists because it's actively popular, not because it's unpopular. If we shut down all discussion every time a few individuals were offended by the topic, where would the world be?

I don't care much for the Bush thread or discussing which dick of a President the American people have elected this time, but I wouldn't call for it to be censored.

[ArrogantBastard]

what in the fuck is going on in here

[Durandal]

i just think it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games didnt have a fucking gamergate thread

What's the problem with that?

[Steamflogger Boss]

I'm not a fan of a lot of stuff being said here, however opening the thread is the choice of anyone doing so. If you don't want to engage with or read this thread, simply don't open it. Locking or deleting it would be silly and the precedent would be set for locking many other threads. In general I think that kind of action should be a last resort and it's not even close to that level yet.

[Skykid]

Well, wait no longer my friend! Just like you, Jessica Valenti could not wait to conflate the Yonge street attack with Gamergate: Hey, this is exactly like that time 4chan donated all that money to a feminist charity!

Wow, that article is absolutely disgusting. How such a biased voice can be allowed to put such propagandist literature into the public consciousness is incredible. She is essentially spending an entire page conflating men who have zero game with women with mentally ill mass murderers who also happen to be lonely and male.

It's beyond comprehension to me that it wasn't cut from the copy room before ever making it to print. It's an exercise in agenda-driven, opinion based bias.

[BulletMagnet]

Your post might be easier to read if you didn't constantly interrupt yourself.

It and the rest would also be a mile long if every item rated its own separate segment with no interjections, so it's pretty much a "pick your poison" state of affairs. As you'll shortly see...

But going by your reaction here, I guess you think even suggesting any of this is the exact same thing as calling for death camps.

No, but what I do think, and am quite prepared to argue, is that 1) What you posit above is not only not quite what you suggest it is, but is definitely not what has been posited thus far since I stuck my head into this mess, and 2) The hopelessly incomplete thought process behind what has been said here is identical to that which has led to innumerable regressive, none-too-well-remembered (by most, anyway) actions throughout history. Let me break a couple of things down:

- In case you need it spelled out, yours are the only posts I've seen which so much as suggest that men innately embody their own set of "destructive tendencies" or whatever you'd care to call them; the notion that set this whole thing off, if you'll recall, was feminization leads to the downfall of society (alongside the accompanying notion that as long as I don't espouse any particular "solution" to this "problem", it's unfair to associate me or my views with any of the real-world consequences said views literally exist solely to put into motion). For whatever it's worth, I certainly haven't seen anyone else in here jumping in to say "yeah, that's exactly what I meant, isn't that right everyone?" - which isn't surprising, since it's not the same argument.

- Moreover, even if you do break away and acknowledge that "masculinization" could potentially go too far in similar fashion, it's apparent that you, and most everyone else in here, "moderate" or not, don't believe that this is an issue at this point in time, that instead women and "emasculated" men are the clear and present danger to be called out and confronted - off the cuff the only "evidence" I've seen presented to support this idea are variations on 1) Some highly out-of-the-ordinary case somewhere gave a man an unfairly bad deal in favor of a woman, it must be evidence of a creeping new world order, 2) People are more likely to criticize me for saying/doing certain things to/about women than they were xyz years ago, everyone's being deliberately sissified, or, my personal favorite, 3) Some no-name SJW YouTuber said something manifestly ridiculous, and I don't trust the rest of society to be as smart as me and dismiss it as the pap it is; more dramatic action is needed to save us from ourselves.

- For even that much righteous agita to hold water one needs to build outward from the premise that societies eventually brought to their knees by "feminization" start out from an ideal "middle ground" where neither masculine nor feminine tendencies hold undue sway over the other; I'm no anthropologist, but off the top of my head I can think of very, very few civilizations, ours very much included, that don't, if you'll pardon the loaded term, trace themselves along a highly and proudly patriarchal timeline.

Unless you want to take up arms against most of recorded history to make the case that women (and "female tendencies") have never really been the "victim" (and I have no doubt that a few of you jokers are raring to do just that ), or the equally-fringe notion that the trajectory of the past century or so has not only completely invalidated the millennia that came before, but has now suddenly gone much too far, and that the oppressed are now the gleeful oppressor (which I know some of you openly believe; moreover, if you'll pardon a bit of salt on the wound, it's the exact same rallying cry that the white supremacists on here make), then you're not arguing for "equilibrium" between the sexes, but against it - if you want to move the dial back to where we've been before, you want to return us to an era where men and "masculinity" further dominated their antipodes, because there simply never was a time when the two sides existed in the balance you claim to seek, let alone the feminist imbalance you claim to fear.

Which, in turn, all but completely undermines the implied moderation of the "both sides have their own bad tendencies" stance, since you obviously aren't anywhere near as troubled by one gender's potential for societal disruption as you are by the other's; whether you outright ignore/deny the perils of "masculinization" or opt to place it on a lower alert level, you simply aren't arguing for "equality" in any meaningful sense, as one gender is always going to be a bigger innate threat to us all than the other as far as you're concerned. "Cancer", if you will.

- And this is before I even bother going back to the aforementioned (and heretofore unaddressed) "men's rights" well of "Can biology be educated away at all?" and "If we're so deep into a global emasculation conspiracy, who can we trust to carry out this vital education?" and "I'm morally opposed to anyone actually acting upon my arguments upon which the fate of humanity hangs, so any criticism of me automatically equals oppression (EDIT: and tone-policing besides!)".

Now it's time for you to make a distinction you've so far been unable or unwilling to make - saying that someone, in similar fashion to much more openly malevolent movements that came before, isn't acknowledging the most troubling and incoherent aspects of their worldview, is not the same as accusing them of being in favor of disenfranchisement and death camps. Moreover, pretending it is only serves, predictably, to inflame and distract from the rubber-meets-road part of this discussion that you claim is so vitally important to our very survival.

[Zen]

Well, wait no longer my friend! Just like you, Jessica Valenti could not wait to conflate the Yonge street attack with Gamergate: Hey, this is exactly like that time 4chan donated all that money to a feminist charity!

Wow, that article is absolutely disgusting. How such a biased voice can be allowed to put such propagandist literature into the public consciousness is incredible. She is essentially spending an entire page conflating men who have zero game with women with mentally ill mass murderers who also happen to be lonely and male.

It's beyond comprehension to me that it wasn't cut from the copy room before ever making it to print. It's an exercise in agenda-driven, opinion based bias.

Par for the course Third Wave Feminism tactics.

The playbook of the other "victims", name dropped by miss Valenti in this article, would make her conflation amateur, by comparison though.
With the Reddit episode Valenti mentions, we segue to another person that Sly Cherry Chunks made reference to with regards the current "incel" Golem;

Ellen Pao

This video is now perhaps dated but may be of interest with respect her "character" and indeed 9:45 may go some way to shed light on
your; "It's beyond comprehension to me that it wasn't cut from the copy room before ever making it to print. It's an exercise in agenda-driven, opinion based bias."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDyCMGEN_As
If you find her case of interest, this article might prove illuminating.
http://fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/

Past that, you may find yourself getting into areas that are tone policed as "conspiracy theory".
But then again, I think you are well prepared for that, having seen the last few pages of derailment.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

@Bulletmagnet: I dont particiulary care for Geist's cancer analogy or the one that can too easily be misinterpreted as "How do we teach women not to be stupid" - but saying that biology informs politics is barely a controversial position and discussing what might happen if the pendulum swings too far one way (either way) is sensible.

"Now go away and prove to me that you didn't mean this thing that you didn't say" is the ultimate in bad-faith arguments, but I think Zen touched on it quite competently:

"feminist emotional masturbation"; feels over facts. Your doing a form of it right now. So affected were you by [a] statement, that you have birthed your subjective interpretation of it into the objective world, as an accusation. Feminism in action.

Here also, is your missing definition of a 'feminized' society: one where every decision made is informed in this way - feelz over reelz so to speak.
No, we don't have to qualify every statement we make with 'of course a masculinized society would be bad too' except to accommodate your worldview, which seems to be informed by the unshakable and final truth that women are the eternal victims and men are the eternal aggressors and that your ideological opponents can only believe the exact opposite and nothing else. Goodness, is the Blue-Pill meme real

- For even that much righteous agita to hold water one needs to build outward from the premise that societies eventually brought to their knees by "feminization" start out from an ideal "middle ground" where neither masculine nor feminine tendencies hold undue sway over the other; I'm no anthropologist, but off the top of my head I can think of very, very few civilizations, ours very much included, that don't, if you'll pardon the loaded term, trace themselves along a highly and proudly patriarchal timeline.

Seems like you're reaching for a conclusion that neither of us wants to admit to. Let's not go there. <----- look, Sly made an emotional call just like a feminist Naturally, equality is our end-game.

[Skykid]

Well, wait no longer my friend! Just like you, Jessica Valenti could not wait to conflate the Yonge street attack with Gamergate: Hey, this is exactly like that time 4chan donated all that money to a feminist charity!

Wow, that article is absolutely disgusting. How such a biased voice can be allowed to put such propagandist literature into the public consciousness is incredible. She is essentially spending an entire page conflating men who have zero game with women with mentally ill mass murderers who also happen to be lonely and male.

It's beyond comprehension to me that it wasn't cut from the copy room before ever making it to print. It's an exercise in agenda-driven, opinion based bias.

Par for the course Third Wave Feminism tactics.

The playbook of the other "victims", name dropped by miss Valenti in this article, would make her conflation amateur, by comparison though.
With the Reddit episode Valenti mentions, we segue to another person that Sly Cherry Chunks made reference to with regards the current "incel" Golem;

Ellen Pao

This video is now perhaps dated but may be of interest with respect her "character" and indeed 9:45 may go some way to shed light on
your; "It's beyond comprehension to me that it wasn't cut from the copy room before ever making it to print. It's an exercise in agenda-driven, opinion based bias."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDyCMGEN_As
If you find her case of interest, this article might prove illuminating.
http://fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/

Past that, you may find yourself getting into areas that are tone policed as "conspiracy theory".
But then again, I think you are well prepared for that, having seen the last few pages of derailment.

Well I'm not really surprised. Ellen Pao's story is familiar in far too many ways: using feminist rhetoric to cover for fair dismissal based on her poor performance, then losing the lawsuit over the dismissal and using feminism yet again to somehow keep her character stainless; and then going on to blame invisible PC people for another dismissal rather than believe that she was pushed out for the censorship of free speech on the internet's largest discussion platform.

It's always because she's a woman when she triumphs, and because she's attacked for being a woman when she fails. There is no responsibility or ownership for anything. She's bulletproof.

It's a shame news media is so utterly complicit in all this storytelling, but then they seem to have been brought to their knees from the inside. We all remember what happened to James Damore at google for daring to challenge the leftist think tank operating within the company. Step out of line with the ideology, and you step out of your job.

[BulletMagnet]

"Now go away and prove to me that you didn't mean this thing that you didn't say" is the ultimate in bad-faith arguments

Dude, I've been (and continue to be) accused of wanting to silence all debate by spewing inflammatory equivalencies thanks to my purely emotional reactions and extreme feminist beliefs, so give me a fucking break.

Here also, is your missing definition of a 'feminized' society: one where every decision made is informed in this way - feelz over reelz so to speak.

Considering that most every "men are at an unfair disadvantage" argument I've ever heard (see previous post) flies directly in the face of most any empirical evidence one could cite (all of which, of course, is the product of an academic feminist conspiracy), relying, instead, on upsettingly fringe outlier cases and highly personal, deep-set feelings of having endured intolerable injustice far beyond what any modern woman (or 'feminized" man) could possibly understand, I believe the phrase "physician, heal thyself" is, shall we say, more than warranted. On the same note, even having not studied this sort of thing at length I'd still be more than willing to wager that the "women are just too innately emotional to think as logically as men" assumption is far less of a factor than "men's advocacy" types like to insist it is.

No, we don't have to qualify every statement we make with 'of course a masculinized society would be bad too' except to accommodate your worldview

Again, see my previous post - for "men's rights" rhetoric to make anything resembling sense, one has to accept the notion that a male-dominated society is the default setting, because to a very large extent this is still what we're dealing with, despite the emotional whining to the contrary, and that's not "feelings" or "eternal victimhood" talking, that's salaries, civil rights, positions of authority, behaviors, attitudes, every measurable data point we have (all faked, of course ). Just because it's not as unequal as it used to be doesn't automatically indicate that "the pendulum has swung too far" unless the goalposts are already planted mid-field, in which case "equality" literally cannot be your "endgame". The previous status quo is, and the two are not remotely the same thing.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Again, see my previous post - for "men's rights" rhetoric to make anything resembling sense, one has to accept the notion that a male-dominated society is the default setting, because to a very large extent this is still what we're dealing with, despite the emotional whining to the contrary, and that's not "feelings" or "eternal victimhood" talking, that's salaries, civil rights, positions of authority, behaviors, attitudes, every measurable data point we have (all faked, of course ). Just because it's not as unequal as it used to be doesn't automatically indicate that "the pendulum has swung too far" unless the goalposts are already planted mid-field, in which case "equality" literally cannot be your "endgame". The previous status quo is, and the two are not remotely the same thing.

Ah man, there's the koolaid. Bud, this is such an uneducated argument that I cant begin to respond without starting the Oppression Olympics all over again right here in off topic. I thoroughly reject the suggestion that society is male dominated. There's an overwhelming amount of common-sense resources out there showing that women have an advantage over men when it comes to, among other things: % college enrollment, % workplace deaths, life expectancy, suicide rates, homelessness, genital mutilation, %funding that goes towards gender specific medical research, prison sentencing for the same crime, child custody settlements, a general dismissive attitude and lack of support for male victims of domestic and sexual violence exists etc etc need I go on? Certainly enough to swing your described pendulum so close back to equality that only the extremists at each end of the argument want to haggle over who's worse off. So yes, equality is our endgame.

Oh lemme guess, you heard all this 'whining' before and dismissed it as right-wing infowars trash. Well, that's part of the problem too.

And that brings the recent discussion full-circle back to Cassie Jaye's documentary The Red Pill which examines all of the above, allows for a feminist counter-argument (from Chanty Binx), yet still had its funding cut when it was realised that Cassie would take a neutral stance, black-balled by the press and no-platformed at virtually every theatre it played at.

[Bananamatic]

what in the fuck is going on in here

the admin is slowly becoming /pol/ due to living in the uk
one active moderator hates this forum and only bans people for sport
the other one would rather endlessly argue politics than clean up the forum

grab some popcorn and enjoy the ride
and maybe add fuel to the fire

i just think it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games didnt have a fucking gamergate thread

it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games discussed arcade games

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

P.S. - Equality = equal rights and opportunities, not forced equal outcomes.

[Bananamatic]

P.S. - Equality = equal rights and opportunities, not forced equal outcomes.

that's how you end up with incels

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Forced equal outcomes is what incels want. Correct.

[Xyga]

isn't Inceltion that film with Dicaprio

[Zen]

Forced equal outcomes is what incels want. Correct.

Incels are Feminists.

[Ko.oS]

a incel

Spoiler

two negros

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1bLXk6UVts

three magii

Spoiler

[Steamflogger Boss]

i just think it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games didnt have a fucking gamergate thread

it would be wonderful if the only active forum left for discussing arcade games discussed arcade games

Games are for nerds anyway.

[Xyga]

Are third wave shmuppers all incels tho ?

[Bananamatic]

every shmupcel is volcel

[BulletMagnet]

Tempted as I am to quietly slip off and allow this mess to return to the primeval mire of lulz and snark from whence it emerged, I do feel a need to point out a decided disconnect between the "grievance lists" submitted in our most recent posts; for whatever it's worth, in an effort to keep my argument more or less consistent, I attempted to limit my selection to factors which 1) Have at least some considerable amount of history buttressing them, and 2) In large part continue to endure only because a significant segment of society wants them to. I'd need more time than I have to dig terribly deep into each item you list, but just to hit a few off the cuff:

% college enrollment [...] life expectancy

Considering that both of these are quite recent developments in Western history - women, after all, along with minorities and the poor, were long highly discouraged if not outright prohibited from obtaining even a basic education, and the odds of dying in childbirth are actually rising nowadays - these two strike me as a stretch to blame on "overfeminization", especially since the life expectancy part of it also has the biological factor involved, and gets even more complicated depending on whether or not you include war casualties (not to mention the effect of loudening "schools/universities are just there to brainwash you" rhetoric). On that note...

% workplace deaths, a general dismissive attitude and lack of support for male victims of domestic and sexual violence

Even some of the bona fide cuckoo clocks have to take a pass on these - heck, not only do they "own" the circumstances as almost entirely male-created, they even say they "don't mind" the discrepancy, they prefer things that way, just so long as they're never asked to confront any of the stuff they don't want to change. How much sense, after all, does it make to protest about the unfairness of a situation you absolutely could work to fix, but absolutely won't?

And last but not least, the coup de gras:

genital mutilation

Oh boy. Didn't I say it - all you have to do is wait and the really pungent fringe goop can't help but start to ooze out.

In short, incomplete as this response is, sorry, but you still have to have some really heavy blinkers on to evaluate the disadvantages each gender faces in today's world and (claim to) conclude "eh, it's basically a wash, quit complaining", let alone "we've gone too far, this must be stopped".

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

these two strike me as a stretch to blame on "overfeminization"

"we've gone too far, this must be stopped".

^Things I didn't say or imply.

your worldview, which seems to be informed by the unshakable and final truth that women are the eternal victims and men are the eternal aggressors and that your ideological opponents can only believe the exact opposite and nothing else.

[You are here]

And last but not least, the coup de gras:

genital mutilation

Oh boy. Didn't I say it - all you have to do is wait and the really pungent fringe goop can't help but start to ooze out.

Oh come on you can't leave it there. Please do go on

[Bananamatic]

(((circumcision))) is a scam
just jack off harder

[Skykid]

these two strike me as a stretch to blame on "overfeminization"

"we've gone too far, this must be stopped".

^Things I didn't say or imply.

I was gonna say the same thing.

(((circumcision))) is a scam
just jack off harder

It's amazing you can contribute so much yet say so little.

[Bananamatic]

yet it takes so little to upset the dudes who got their cock snipped

[BulletMagnet]

^Things I didn't say or imply.

Then, what, you're basically in agreement with the Proud Boys guy that men - real men, anyway - are (or should be) perfectly fine with most/all of the "disadvantages" they have to deal with, so in turn women should just pipe down and feel the same about their lot (which, of course, men have never had any part whatsoever in determining and enforcing)? If you don't think anything's too terribly wrong with the state of gender relations or where it's headed, why are you up in arms along with the rest?

You are here

If you're not just being glibly dismissive and the stuff I'm bringing up seriously comes across to you as so "extremist" that it could only come from someone with a debilitating lack of perspective I seriously don't know what to tell you.

Oh come on you can't leave it there. Please do go on

If you think I'm resurrecting the Stormwatch Shitslide you've got another thing coming, though before slapping this one onto your list I doubt that you so much as considered the notion that "female circumcision" (for whatever it's worth, I can pretty much guarantee you it wasn't a woman who coined that term) 1) Is orders of magnitude harsher upon the subject (if its male "equivalent" can even be accurately compared to it at all), and 2) Is performed for very different, and frankly much more malevolent, reasons. You want to take a stance against the procedure on any grounds I'm not gonna sit here and protest, but ushering it into the "men have it worse" arena? Get fucking serious, dude. Most of the items you posted are a hard sell on "the pendulum's pretty much even" grounds, but this one is easily the dumbest of the entire bunch.

[Bananamatic]

i like how the trump thread died just because bulletmagnet found a new thread to argue in