I’m going to bring up a clear hypocrisy here - I don’t have a lot of time, in between class, but I’m going to point out something. He praises people who stand up against those in the center at the platform. Yet he silences a dissenting opponent three times.
Here’s the fact: everyone, even the biggest hippie, believes in censorship. They think certain ideas are dangerous compared to others. Even this man makes it clear he thinks the idea that ideas are dangerous should be suppressed - so in the end he is no different than his opponents. He plays the same song to a different tune.
Even I openly admit some ideas are dangerous and they should be addressed. The challenge is discussing ideas in an academic space in a civil manner without a contest to overthrow one another.
It’s not hypocrisy to want to speak your piece without interruption. Keep in mind the opposition *also* got to speak. So not only did she want her chance to talk… she wanted HIS chance to talk as well.
Which is standard SJA bullshit. You may speak… insofar as it’s a means for me to promote my ideology.
Capp is right in one respect, he shut her down because this debate uses Robert’s Rules of Order. Which may seem like some kind of Orthodoxy that should be fought, but then it becomes less of a debate, and more of an argument, where neither side gets to actually put up their position. She got to present a counterpoint, and during the middle of his wanted to shut him down with her own. The real hypocricy here is that she agreed to a debate, then wanted the floor during his time.
And it’s actually a good debate, and he brought up some good points on how the modern atmosphere of Social Justice on campus and places like Tumblr seems predicated on misanthropic principles, treating all humans as fragile creatures that can’t take criticism, and is such a far cry from how people working on Soocial Justice should be (and were, sometimes less than a decade ago). Also pointing out the whole cult of ideology that’s sprung up, and how it’s the same as Protecting Greek kids from Socartes’ philosophy, Protecting the Church from criticism, and protecting numerous other ideologies that many of them would consider backwards nowadays. In truth he has a good point, and I would like to add to it. If your ideology can’t be questioned, then it is the same as the priests who got Henry IV to pass “de Heretico Comburendo” in the name of protecting commoners from heresy and hell.
If you watch the whole thing the female opponent tries to actually interrupt him, she literally cannot sit and wait her turn. She starts to speak before he gives her permission. To be fair, somebody does this on his side during the last speech though.
The woman there, when she stands up and does her bit, can only throw ad hom attacks. She practically says “educate yourself” when somebody asks her for proof that he wrote something. She pretty much says “my feelings > your free speech”.
I don’t like the proposal side much, 2/3 of them I think are kinda dicks. But the opposite side are fucking dicks who also want to censor anyone.
The last speech in the debate sums things up perfectly. You have some jackass comparing “offensive speech” to intentionally targeting civilians in war, making the claim that some offensive speech needs to be banned if it is deemed harmful.
And the woman on the proposal side asks (after being waved down repeatedly by this guy so in fucking love with his own notes he can’t look away from them) “Who decides?”.
He doesn’t answer, he continues just blustering on. Because we all fucking know what the answer is when dealing with moral authoritarians.
A short speech on why Social Justice Warriors can go fuck themselves from the fine minds of Oxford University.
What a fucking boss.
Sweet merciful fuck, that’s some good shit.
And make no mistake, he is absolutely talking about modern feminists and SJWs. He is absolutely addressing extremist liberals and radical social progressives. This is a speech being given in response to the increasingly totalitarian practices of student unions and university organizations.
There’s also another very important point in there which deserves emphasis: It is the idea that these people are not rebels or noble revolutionaries. They are not the champions of the downtrodden or the virtuous few who have put the good of others above themselves. They are an orthodoxy. An authority really.
On campuses, student unions have more control and power than they should have ever rightfully been given and now that it is threatened because they have become corrupt and cruel with their use of that power, they have come full circle and become the exact sort of thing they insist they are fighting: An institutionalized system that oppresses and treads all over the rights of others in the name of their own personal empowerment and gain.
This muthafucka drops a brutal truth bomb that no social justice shitlib can honestly reply to, period. SJWs lay dead in piles, not even the vultures want them.
Actually this is incorrect. Emphatically wrong. I do enjoy seeing the viciousness in the first paragraph: “shitlib, sjw lay dead in piles” and other things that show the generally malignant nature of whoever posted it. May life give you peace and enlightenment, or some sedatives, whichever helps to bring you mental balance or keep you from hurting others, OP.
But let me break this down:
There are more male leads because they are allowed to be flawed, and in fact, the white “failure” character is a celebrated archetype, the underdog that turns out to have been special all along. An easily identifiable figure for the nerd gamer.
The example of “Galbrush” fails to consider what would make Galbrush’s problems truly gender based: if people said ‘You can’t do this, because you’re a girl’ as opposed to ‘you can’t do this because you’re a bad pirate.'
There is no box. In fact, the only box that I can see is the one where female characters can only be: sexy, scantly clad, rescued, and god forbid they actually are unconventionally unattractive.
The idea is to remove female objectification, characters made for the male-gaze, characters who are made exclusively to serve tropes that pander to the male player’s ego and needs. As a matter of fact, it will be a great thing when you can play a game and no longer worry that if you see a girl, there is a chance there will be a rape plotline, or that she will be inevitably rescued at some point or another.
Lastly, and because this is simpler: the reason game protags white is because game marketers and creators, and a lot of the market, is really racist and will continue to feed the dominant imperial american culture, and thus, should be very, very ashamed.
The more female characters you have, the more you can do with them. If you just have the token girl character, and you give her the same flaws that every other token girl character has, I’m going to assume that’s what you think of women.
But if you have five girls, and one is lazy, but the others are not; one is stupid, but the others are not; one is a lecherous drunk, but the others are not… see, it gives room for these girls to be interesting and have flaws and maybe overcome those flaws but maybe not. And maybe the lazy one is not just lazy, but brave; maybe the stupid one is really funny and kind; maybe the lecherous drunk is strong as an ox. None of them are representing womankind anymore and none of them are just composed of bad traits, but none of them are boring comprised of goody two shoes good traits, either.
Which is, perhaps, the strongest argument for including lots of female characters in a story. It makes them all more interesting, and, as a writer, that should be the first thought in your mind.
The hoops people want writers to jump through.
Can’t just write a female character, you’ve gotta write half a dozen female characters and spend the whole time pointing out how special and unique their personalities are.
At some point in there I’m sure you’ll have a few minutes to tell the actual story.
rosalarian
this isn’t industry-related, or if it is, it’s marketing advice from some fucker who got laid off because she’s too sick to function. I don’t care about gaming, game dev, or games journalism, and my only political opinion on what has happened to you recently reflects on all…
Anita Sarkeesian is Canadian though, so she may have a loophole, but Zoe, YA SCREWED, SON! YA GOIN’A JAIL FA THREE YEARS, SON!
nice
Zoe Quinn getting fucked? Who could’ve forseen this.
HOLY FUCK WHAT. FUCKING DO IT.
FUCKING
DO
IT.
SOMEONE POST THE FUCKING SHIA LABOOF MEME UNDER THIS BECAUSE I’M TOO EXCITED AT THE MERE IDEA OF THIS TO GO AND GET IT.
OMFG YES.
Here ya go. Fuck me, i’m so excited right now.
Can you guys just leave them the fuck alone and stop ruining their lives. They’ve done jack shit to you. Just stop. I swear to god i see another person reblog this i’m drop kicking them in the fucking face. I’m so done with this shit.
Bring it the fuck on then.
“just leave them the fuck alone and stop ruining their lives.”
THIS LITERALLY IS THEIR LIVES LOL. Sarkeesian has gotten fucking rich off of playing the victim and Quinn is just trying to do the same.
These cunts are nothing but con artists and fake-victims.
“ruining their lives.” LOL OK.
Just another example of that oh so terrible cyber-violence amirite? :^)
I strongly disagree with this. Using the government to silence political opponents (and let’s be honest the only reason they are being targeted this way is because of political reasons) is a no go for me. I think it is unethical and beneath us and the lot of you should know better.
Plus weren’t they just taking to the women’s UN? They have no actual power, no actual authority, and it’s largely symbolic. A model UN for teens technically has “representatives” from other countries, but you’ll have a hard time convincing a judge that they’re representatives when they have no vested Authority from their nations.
I think we’re being a bit hasty here. Get ‘em on something else, but not some seldom-used law that probably doesn’t even apply.
Fraud is a felony, certainly. But that’s not where the motivation to prosecute stems from and we all know it. This is a means to silence them, actually silence them, using the government as a means to do so.
If the government wants to prosecute for whatever reason so be it… but us demanding she brought down is another matter altogether.
Cap, if you saw someone you hate running down the road with stolen items, you would call the cops. Now this happening is a bit different but the idea is the same
If I saw *you* running down the street with stolen goods. If I spoke to the U.N. and compromised what is fundamentally a procedural law would you want me to spend time I’m prison? Would you organize a petition to have me prosecuted?
“fundamentally a procedural law”
procedural laws don’t have “fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” in them. They usually end to be in the tone of “Congress shall make no law”
Also the Logan Act clearly states: “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be” So it does apply to everyone*.
“
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
“
“It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” - William Henry Blackstone
and in this case Ms. Sarkeesian and friends are seeking relief from online harassment, relief they feel would be best provided by widespread censorship, and freedom from harassment something they believe they have a right to.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It is her position that the harassment of women is a global phenomena and so addressed the world’s governments in an effort to do something about it.
Further…
in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States
I can think of nothing Ms. Sarkeesian and friends could have said that would pertain to any disputes or controversies another country has with the U.S.
Bill Gates, or someone like him, trying to use his resources to influence Israeli peace talks (especially in a manner that opposes American interests) is a violation of the Logan Act. Giving a speech about the “harsh realities” of American life and what Israel can do about it isn’t.
If she violated the law this is a cheap bullshit ploy by people who are supposed to be better than this shit to shut down a political opponent and fuck that.
This isn’t about some wormy bullshit “Oh, bu-bu-bu-but selective prosecution!”. No. This is about finding a law this woman and her ilk likely had no idea they were violating and then using it to punish her for her beliefs.
Nobody here gave a single solitary fuck about “The Logan Act” until it could be used as a weapon against a person that doesn’t think in a manner they approve.
That’s fucking bullshit and everyone reading this knows it.
Going on authoritarian power trips to shut down the opposition isn’t our way, at least it’s not mine.
And now you fuckers have put me in a position where I have to defend this fucking woman…
I mean what the fuck is even going on here? When did this happen to our movement? Has it always had this sickness in it? How the fuck did *I* become the ethical one?
Because we are ENDLESSLY carrying on about How the Feminist movement became such total shit because nobody among them stood up and said no.
Well here I am, right now, for the record, making it as abundantly fucking clear as I am able…
WE DO NOT USE THE GOVERNMENT OR AUTHORITARIAN POWERS TO SQUELCH THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION.
Because this is the real deal people. This is how and where and why movements go sour. This is how they rot. The persecution of the opposition almost always begins with the prosecution of the opposition. Some trumped up bullshit justification for why those we disagree with need to be put in a hole somewhere for the “betterment of society”.
No.
“They did something possibly illegal” “NO your only doing this to shut them up!!!”
While that’s wrong to do and I won’t pretend I know anything about the law…did they possibly do something illegal? Should our dislike of someone stop us from pointing out a possible legal issue? Should or disagreements be a safety blanket for them to break the law because going after them seems more like an act of censorship?
Anita as gotten away with a lot of shady legal business over the years. From stealing artwork and going after the real artist, to stealing game footage and attacking the original creators, and now this possible thing. Again I don’t know.
But brushing over it saying we shouldn’t even look into possible broken laws and rXqules based on distaste and differing views is madness. Don’t let that be the only reason but don’t let it be a pass for wrong doing.
Let’s look into see if she broke any laws… why? To be “good citizens”? Do you do that with everyone else in your life? Do you call the cops every time someone you know lights up a joint? Do you lose your fucking mind every time someone cheats on their taxes? Got the IRS on speed dial?
If not WHY not? What makes her special? Why is she being singled out? Because she’s a bad person that does bad things and she’s “got it coming”? Well who the fuck are you or I or anyone else to make the call who lives or dies? We have professionals to do that for us and between you and me I’d rather leave political pressure out of it.
“We’re petitioning for your prosecution.” is a sentence that makes me sick with its implications.
Even worse this cover of “Well, there’s a law that’s been broken, so like uh…” is fucking flimsy.
Call me when she fucking murders someone, or at least gets caught selling crank to school kids. But this bullshit political gotcha shit… it’s not going to fly.
More importantly a group of people gathering together and using political tools as a means to see someone punished under the guise of some archaic law when it’s really just because they’re the political “other”… that’s fucking harassment. That is actual, genuine , bona-fide harassment.
Look, I’ve only got so many years of my life left… how many of them do you want me to spend telling you this is fucking wrong and no mealy mouthed weasel worded justification is going to change that?
this should’ve begun & ended with “this would just be a fine even if she were guilty, which talking to the UN is not a violation of this act, so unless there was some shady under-the-table dealings she isn’t.”
remember sopa? cispa? acta?
this is just the government’s latest move in trying to censor the internet. they’re using this cunt as a pawn. if you’re telling me using the government to fight the government is morally reprehensible, fucking kill yourself. if you’re telling me this cunt is not a reasonable sacrifice for our freedom of speech, fucking kill yourself.
I have heard the terms "White Knight" and "social justice warrior" plastered across the internet. To some it's a compliment, to others it's an insult, What exactly do the terms mean?
Social Justice Warrior is a person who takes social issues like feminism and race relations and blows them completely out of proportion to the point where everything that doesn’t fall under their narrow view of what’s acceptable is deemed horribly offensive and should be removed. They are the feminist version of the ultra conservatives who wrote the Hays Code. They’re not a pretty bunch. The feminists versions of the Christians who wanted Rock and Roll censored because they thought it was satanic. If you’ve ever heard of Jack Thompson, the lawyer who tried to get GTA pulled from the shelves because he claimed video game violence causes real world violence, you’ve basically heard of SJWs. Just replace violence with sexism and you’ve got the gist of their world view.
White Knights are people (usually men) who come to the defense of these people in spite of overwhelming evidence that they’re wrong and/or are horrible people. Tom Preston is a prime example of a white knight. A lot of white knights are just a bunch of dorky guys who don’t know any better and think that putting SJW’s extreme brand of feminism up on a pedestal will get them bonus points with the ladies.
SJW and feminism are essentially a vie for “acceptable” forms of censorship.
“X causes violence against women, therefore X should not be permitted." Whenever anyone says that there’s too much of anything in any art, it’s censorship. Their intentions may be good, and they may even be right, but it is never not censorship.
TL;DR version… this person worked for a softcore pornography site that Zoe Quinn (going by the moniker Locke Valentine) was to “pose” for.
She gives an account of her experience with “Locke.”
MOD 1: Oh boy this should be good.
While we tried to plan a shoot for the next day Zoe, and Co. chatted with me. She claimed to have stabbed a man - attempted rapist - in the face, who had grabbed her.
Haha this is good already.
Two claims involved alleged workplace incidents, and were her prime explanation for why she could not hold a job. I was mildly disconcerted, because true or false, these stories have good cause to make one uneasy. She also claimed to have reported nothing to police, or management at her work.
HAHAHA OH FUUUUUUUCK
That’s what a lie sounds like ladies and gentlemen, “I was almost raped and I stabbed someone, oh of course I never reported it though.” Especially when a girl offers this information right off the bat. If she can’t wait to blab I WAS RAPED/ALMOST RAPED that’s how you know it’s fake. When a girl is raped or almost raped and she didn’t even report it, she doesn’t yammer about it in casual conversation. Especially with the common lie that “the cops wouldn’t do anything,” because all rapes are treated with brutal seriousness, even the false claims.
So full of goodness. Here’s some more.
Zoe informed me that her roommate, who had been involved in the shoots, either by being in the apartment, or smuggling us in to her place of work turned out to be a, ” mentally unbalanced cunt,” (her words not mine) among other things, and that it was unacceptable to use ANY of the photos we had taken that weekend.
Note the instant vie for domination over another person regarding a tenuous relation. “I stubbed my toe the other day, therefore you’re not allowed to vacuum the floor.” That’s how a bipolar insane girl behaves, and/or a drug addict girl, which is what zoe quinn is. She’s a stupid insane girl.
And anyone who allies with her eventually will get brought down with her, or by her. She will turn on her friends pretty soon, like clockwork.
despite the fact that neither Zoe, nor I, had any legal obligation to ask the roommate’s permission for ANYTHING.
As this girl points out herself.
a handful of other models I had worked with on the site messaged me to inform me that Zoe had written them and told them that I forced her to look at, “mutilated vagina,” pictures, which she said, had horrified her, and she had basically sent me away then and there.
Next come the lies from zoe to victimize herself and demonize another girl. This is common behavior for bipolars or drug addicts. “She made me look at bad things and it traumatized meeeeeeee everyone hug me love me, and believe at face value when I say she’s a bad person!” Girls like zoe don’t even do that out of revenge or spite, they just pick a target at random so they can create a hugbox for instant backpats.
Notice how quickly the game journalists offered to “buy zoe a feel-better gift”?
The models she told this to knew me, and thankfully came to me with these nonsense claims. We had in fact discussed cosmetic surgery, while talking about modeling, and she had looked up Before/After Breast Implant images. The conversation moved on to Labiaplasty, and we looked at a few of those images as well. So, there is an inch of truth, in the really awful lie she told about me.
Naturally, as proven here, the lies of bipolar girls like zoe usually come out of some form of truth.
But the goal is sympathy and attention. Not true sympathy, but fake sympathy. Usually from people who don’t really care, they just want some of that sweet zoe quinn pussy. Which she gives up regularly I’m sure.
There are many red flags a girl gives away to show she’s bipolar. Whining for sympathy over something minor like this is one of the earliest warning signs.
The good thing is that bipolars never go long before they betray their friends.
What does this story have to do with GamerGate? When I realized Locke was Zoe, I was disgusted to see she was still playing the same games. Stealing, cheating, lying and claiming to be victimized by anyone and everyone.
The worst part about dealing with bipolars is that you never know they’re fucking loonbat crazies (who should be ground up into dogfood) until it’s too late and they’ve already spread lies about you to your own friends to make your friends hate you.
Here’s the best part though:
Upon reading though archived emails, I discovered I can confirm and prove that she claimed to have killed the man she stabbed.
