Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[James Caruthers]

Can't believe I forgot to mention Milo as another antifeminist.

I can't think of any GG member who occupies that sort of pop culture pro feminist position, actually. Maybe someone can suggest someone I'm overlooking.

[free thoughtpolice]

James, what allows you to youngpunksplain to CH Sommers as to whether she is a real feminist or not?
Also what is up with you and "Anita" being on first name basis? Are you a deep cover troll trying to index us ? :think:

[didymos]

Elyse Anders took her tweets protected. One less source of crazy to gawk at.

[AndrewV69]

There was an excellent article in The Daily Beast by John McWhorter about how white liberals are treating the writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates as if they are some kind of infallible religious gospel. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ml?via=ios

Just a few hours later, a prominent SJW atheist posts this piece of crap on Salon that proves McWhorter completely correct: https://archive.is/z7gQS

Apparently Greg Epstein of Harvard Humanists has abandoned secular humanism in order to preach the infallible gospel of Coates.

What's most easily identifiable to me amongst the sjwankery in online atheism, is that they have managed to figure out that the god story is bullshit, but they haven't addressed the underlying problem. Their thought patterns, they need to believe in something, for their life to have some form of objective purpose. They don't purge themselves of belief systems, they just leave a hole which they need to fill with other woo, in order to have an identity. The idea of their life being nothing in time and space scares the shit out of them.

Personally I find it enriching, but i'm an absurdist, so I get my kicks out of the stupidity of it all.

I strongly suspect that the ability to believe is a heritable trait. Not too certain about the need to do so however.

[Guest]

Vacula must denounce gambling..

[Guest]

Surly Amy made a painting of what something looks like with your eyes closed.

That's still amazing to me.

Nah, you really do see migraine auras when you close your eyes. That's one way I know I am about to have a migraine.

Different people see different sorts of auras, my seem like silvery optical defects, sort of like Surlie's paintings, sort of like Doctor Who's Eleventh's rip in space time., but often hollow, that is I see more of a silvery halo distorting my optical view.

And when I close my eyes, the halo is clearly present, silver against black.

[Guest]

"I believe that white males shouldn't get anymore jobs, there's too many of them already."

As you can see, I'm an anonymous coward who just comments on low-hit blogs, but I once did open my mouth in public. It was at a faculty meeting where a female we'd just hired from Brandeis actually said that couldn't make an offer to someone because he was a white male and that they were over-represented in the dept. Without thinking, I pointed out that she was the third Jewish female in a dept of 30, making her demographic the most over-represented group - by far - when compared to the general population.

And then it got nasty.

Jews are less than 2% of the population.

pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

But they were 10% of your department. What are the odds?

I'm sorry no one asked her, I'm a Jew old enough to remember Bakke, and I'd love to hear a female Jewish Academic (a group that tends to do very well) rationalize discrimination on the basis of sex or color or anything other than merit.

[MacGruberKnows]

I have an idea for a novel. I will call it 'The Island of Dr. Pharyngula'. The Dr. will have created a horde of baboons who are getting out of control. They ask of him "What do you want from us?". Dr. Pharyngula says "Nothing."

Then they eat him and his friends and then they eat themselves.

End of story.

[AndrewV69]

Benson takes an unprovoked jab at Steersman and maybe suspects that he's the culprit behind the allegedly fake comments posted under her name. :lol:

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/wxVCgxo.jpg[/img]

https://archive.is/wUGvd
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... rsonation/

:) Though maybe not an entirely "unprovoked jab" - this tweet may have been the proximate cause as it did pertain to the fake comments. (While both Benson and LC have me blocked - tsk, tsk, such a lackluster commitment to freethought - a response, subsequently deleted, may have put a shot across both their bows.):
[.tweet][/tweet]

<choppage>

----
1) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant”;
2) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass”;
3) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male”;
4) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female”;
5) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set”;
6) “_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism”;

But of maybe some related interest, Giliell has weighed in there at Sinmantyx, apparently in response to that one of mine, on the question of what is entailed by a social construct.

Basically Steers, as I see it what you have is a bunch of ignorant people arguing about things they do not understand. So the chance that they actually get to any sort of truth is slim to none. By accident perhaps. Not even wrong seems to cover it.

[Billie from Ockham]

The core argument of gamergate as I interpret it, which I believe is fair, is that "SJWs" aka academic feminists, need to get their infiltrating noses out of gamer culture and video games.

"Core argument," eh? As in: without the involvement of feminists, there would have been no gamergate? People were totes cool with the bullshit in games reviewing, etc, until some chick with hairy armpits showed up and ruined it all.

Also, I couldn't help notice that your list of anti-feminist gamergators all happen to be speakers of English. In fact, as I interpret it, they are all English-speakers first and just happen to be anti-feminists. Oh, and none are bald. Are you sure that the core argument of gamergate isn't something to do with unreadable instructions on electronic equipment that can set your hair on fire? Seems to fit the same logic.

[Guest]

... these anti-SJWs home in on antifeminist-related causes like Gamergate ...

Wow. When you decided to drink Kool-Aid, you don't stop after one cup, eh?

You know, no matter how many people tell me GG isn't antifeminist, that doesn't stop it from being heavily antifeminist.

The core argument of gamergate as I interpret it, which I believe is fair, is that "SJWs" aka academic feminists, need to get their infiltrating noses out of gamer culture and video games.

This is an antifeminist position in reaction to feminist SJWs sticking their noses into video games.

I'm sorry you're too stupid or dishonest to recognize it as what it is.

"Antifeminist" is a description of position relative to an ideological movement. GG is largely antifeminist despite having a few feminist supporters (who self-describe as feminist but who tend to be antifeminist with regard to the specific question of feminist academic SJW criticism of video games and gamers.)

Honest GGers will admit that their main problem is not simply corruption, but specifically SJW feminism within gaming spaces. If their problem was mainly with corruption, they would focus the bulk of their attention on organizations like EA, Ubisoft and other AAA publishers who routinely use bribery and other sleazy tactics, and would ignore fucking VLOGGERS like Anita Sarkeesian, who has nothing to do whatsoever with video games.

To say nothing of the leaders of GG, who are almost to a person antifeminists. There are a few notable exceptions, but refer to my previous statement about how even those feminists are antifeminist specifically on SJW infiltration of gaming spaces.

Sargon of Akkad is an antifeminist.

King of Pol was an antifeminist.

Internet Aristocrat was an antifeminist.

MundaneMatt is an antifeminist.

TotalBiscuit and Boogie, no idea.

Davis Aurini is an antifeminist.

Jordan Owen is an antifeminist specifically wrt video game criticism.

/pol/ is antifeminist

Christina Hoff Summers is a non-gamer antifeminist who self-describes as a feminist.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't give a fuck how many times it calls itself a goose. If GG wasn't antifeminist, why in the fuck would so many white supremacist, right wing PuA antifeminists like Aurini support Gamergate? GG would be just another liberal leftist degenerate SJW movement that they would hate. Why would so many ardent antifeminists like AVfM support a feminist, feminist-positive or feminist-accepting movement? They wouldn't. They don't. They support GG because it is LARGELY an antifeminist movement opposed to what it sees as feminist infiltration of video games.

Diana Davidson supports Gamergate. Why the fuck would she do that if it was pro-feminist in any way? She's a staunch antifeminist.

That is not a value judgement on the validity of GG or whether or not it is good. But for fuck's sake, let's call it what it for the most part is.

I think you're conflating 4th wave SJ feminism with feminism in the same way that dictionary feminists do.

To the extent that pitters might be called egalitarians are pitters against women having rights? Are pitters anti-feminist? No.

Neither are most GGs, and certainly neither is Sommers.

And then given the range of recognized feminist viewpoints
plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/

Sommer's Equity feminism clearly is acknowledged as a specific arm of feminism. And it's one that seems to be held by Nadine Strossen (ACLU), Wendy Kaminer, and many others including academics or former academics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individualist_feminists

[Guest]

I also don't know any GG personalities that would say GG was about ethics and NOT at all about SJ nonsense. Most would say the ethical issues are directly about the overwhelming influence of SJ nonsense corrupting journalism and corrupting the games.

[James Caruthers]

James, what allows you to youngpunksplain to CH Sommers as to whether she is a real feminist or not?
Also what is up with you and "Anita" being on first name basis? Are you a deep cover troll trying to index us ? :think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, both of which are critical of contemporary feminism.

Sommers is known for her criticisms of contemporary feminism. She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with what she calls "victim" or "gender feminism",[2] arguing that modern feminist thought often contains an "irrational hostility to men" and possesses an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different".[2] Other scholars and feminists have called her works and positions anti-feminist.[3][4][5][6][7] Sommers rejects claims that she is opposed to feminism.[8]

Whether one considers her feminist or antifeminist is very much a matter of interpretation. She considers herself feminist but she seems to spend much of her time arguing against feminism and she had to create her own kind of feminism to explain how she's actually a feminist while also being against most feminism that exists in practice.

Sommers has also written about Title IX and the shortage of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. She opposes recent efforts to apply Title IX to the sciences[28] because, she says, "Science is not a sport. In science, men and women play on the same teams. ... There are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms."[29] Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements.

I don't think it's unfair to call her antifeminist if arguing solely on her positions.

https://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/

This conservative think tank either employs her or works with her.

[James Caruthers]

I also don't know any GG personalities that would say GG was about ethics and NOT at all about SJ nonsense. Most would say the ethical issues are directly about the overwhelming influence of SJ nonsense corrupting journalism and corrupting the games.

It depends. Some of them like Aurini, Milo and possibly Sargon seem to think the root of all evils is SJW feminism. Others seem to think ethics violations can exist separate from SJW shit. Still others believe it's a combination problem.

My position is that gaming journalism has been corrupt from day 1 and long before SJWism came along.

[James Caruthers]

I guess when indie game journalism and online journalism hit it big, people assumed it would somehow be more legit than Nintendo Power. But that assumption was based on wishful thinking. Gaming journalism is a big party for shilling and youtube personalities are as likely to be a part of it as anyone. In fact, indie games often end up being some of the most overhyped and shilled by gaming journalists, and no I'm not talking about Depression Quest, but shit like Fez.

[Guest]

Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, both of which are critical of ... feminism.

Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, both of which are critical of contemporary feminism.

Amazon says she has written 5 books, your wiki article discusses 2 of them.
Two are about ethics
One is about therapy
Two are about feminism.

[Guest]

I also don't know any GG personalities that would say GG was about ethics and NOT at all about SJ nonsense. Most would say the ethical issues are directly about the overwhelming influence of SJ nonsense corrupting journalism and corrupting the games.

It depends. Some of them like Aurini, Milo and possibly Sargon seem to think the root of all evils is SJW feminism. Others seem to think ethics violations can exist separate from SJW shit. Still others believe it's a combination problem.

My position is that gaming journalism has been corrupt from day 1 and long before SJWism came along.

Well I agree in that I've long thought computer trade journalism was corrupt going back to their proclaiming the always crashing Windows 3 the best OS ever. And also in that all journalism, not just gaming journalism is lazy and corrupt.

SJW does add a unique and virulent theme to that and not just to journalism but as a "threat" to all of society.

[Skep tickle]

James, what allows you to youngpunksplain to CH Sommers as to whether she is a real feminist or not?
Also what is up with you and "Anita" being on first name basis? Are you a deep cover troll trying to index us ? :think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, both of which are critical of contemporary feminism.

Sommers is known for her criticisms of contemporary feminism. She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with what she calls "victim" or "gender feminism",[2] arguing that modern feminist thought often contains an "irrational hostility to men" and possesses an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different".[2] Other scholars and feminists have called her works and positions anti-feminist.[3][4][5][6][7] Sommers rejects claims that she is opposed to feminism.[8]

Whether one considers her feminist or antifeminist is very much a matter of interpretation. She considers herself feminist but she seems to spend much of her time arguing against feminism and she had to create her own kind of feminism to explain how she's actually a feminist while also being against most feminism that exists in practice.

Sommers has also written about Title IX and the shortage of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. She opposes recent efforts to apply Title IX to the sciences[28] because, she says, "Science is not a sport. In science, men and women play on the same teams. ... There are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms."[29] Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements.

I don't think it's unfair to call her antifeminist if arguing solely on her positions.

https://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/

This conservative think tank either employs her or works with her.

Totally depends on the definition(s) you're allowing for "feminism". IMO using "anti-feminism" to describe critiques of specific "waves" of feminism, but not all of feminism, is a pretty blatant attempt to frame the argument in a way that puts the critiqued position(s) in the most positive light.

[Suet Cardigan]

My wife said about Surly Amy's painting, "Oh that's neat, she learned to paint with her eyes closed?"

She was serious. She misread the tweet part, skimming it.

By the look of them, her Surlyramics were done with her eyes closed.

[Steersman]

Benson takes an unprovoked jab at Steersman and maybe suspects that he's the culprit behind the allegedly fake comments posted under her name. :lol:

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/wxVCgxo.jpg[/img]

https://archive.is/wUGvd
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... rsonation/

:) Though maybe not an entirely "unprovoked jab" - this tweet may have been the proximate cause as it did pertain to the fake comments. (While both Benson and LC have me blocked - tsk, tsk, such a lackluster commitment to freethought - a response, subsequently deleted, may have put a shot across both their bows.):
[.tweet][/tweet]

<snip>
But of maybe some related interest, Giliell has weighed in there at Sinmantyx, apparently in response to that one of mine, on the question of what is entailed by a social construct.

Basically Steers, as I see it what you have is a bunch of ignorant people arguing about things they do not understand. So the chance that they actually get to any sort of truth is slim to none. By accident perhaps. Not even wrong seems to cover it.

Complex issue and I can't say that I have a really great handle on all of it myself as I think there are many different perspectives, each of which may have some validity. For instance, while I'm sympathetic to the idea of a hard-and-fast definition of male and female as producers of sperm and ova, that seems to suffer from a number of limitations: do we insist that people who have had vasectomies or hysterectomies can no longer claim to be male or female on their driver's licenses? So some spectrum between the peaks "male" and "female" seems plausible even if the valley between them - defined by various degrees of different sexual attributes - is rather close to sea level and is rather sparsely populated.

And the exercise seems of more than academic value, in part because the issue relies on some highly questionable "feminist" dogma that should be challenged wherever it's encountered.

[Skep tickle]

https://twitter.com/MysteryVP/status/625531575036329984

[AndrewV69]

Michael Nugent has a post up on the Ophelia rift!

PZ MYERS AND THE LITTLE SHOP OF HATRED

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/07/28 ... of-hatred/

Assuming that he is sincere, he could demonstrate his sincerity by applying his new standards to himself, starting by making amends with the many people he has unjustly smeared over the years.

And that would take exactly how long if he did it individually? A daunting task just from the amount of time PeeZuss Christ would need to do this.

We wouldn’t tolerate behaviour like that from our children, and we shouldn’t tolerate it from our adult colleagues.

*cough* My prediction is that PeeZuss is not going to appreciate it when someone characterizes his behavior as childish, especially as it is true.

[Steersman]

Her subsequent reply-tweets have her pointing to her blog here:

https://4amfeminism.wordpress.com/

She's got Steersman on her case. Poor lassy.

https://twitter.com/diagonal_mambo/with_replies

Seems that twitter page no longer exists. And I get a "This user does not exist" when I click on their @-address in my previous tweet to them. Folded their tents and stole off into the night?

[blitzem]

Anti-feminist hijackers notwithstanding, GamerGate the hashtag started as two things:

1) Outrage at 15 or so of the top game "journalism" blogs for a) their collusion in the Zoey Quinn crapola and b) their constant SJW-style haranguing at gamers that they were all a bunch of pasty-white misogynistic shitheads living in Mom's basement, and

2) A bunch of women and/or POCs that were reacting against part b) above for being "erased", etc. by the blogs and saying, "hey, we are gamers too, jackholes."

Cherry picking the obvious anti-fem hangers-on and hijackers and painting all GGers as such is fine, if that's the way you want to go, but it ignores the origin and a huge percentage of the people involved in GG. A lot of GGers don't give a flying fuck about Snarky, as they realize how irrelevant she is.

As for EA and all the corporate stuff? Yes, yes, we know all about it. There are several reasons EA is the most hated game developer, and all the crap associated with their PR campaigns has been talked about ad nauseum. But everyone expects this from corporate gaming. People were pissed about the blogs' shitty behaviour because they set themselves up as anti-corporate, and then they started to shit all over the gamers.

But, as usual, YMMV.

[Steersman]

There was an excellent article in The Daily Beast by John McWhorter about how white liberals are treating the writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates as if they are some kind of infallible religious gospel. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ml?via=ios

Just a few hours later, a prominent SJW atheist posts this piece of crap on Salon that proves McWhorter completely correct: https://archive.is/z7gQS

Apparently Greg Epstein of Harvard Humanists has abandoned secular humanism in order to preach the infallible gospel of Coates.

Indeed - an excellent article by McWhorter even if his analogy between religion and Antiracism seems a little forced. But a salient quote that elaborates on a point I've tried to develop, as has Cathy Young in her "Ferguson: beyond Black and White", that while there is, no doubt, some systemic racism that blacks have had to deal with, there are also, apparently, some systemic problems in the black community that contribute to the mess:

Yet Antiracism as religion has its downsides. It encourages an idea that racism in its various guises must be behind anything bad for black people, which is massively oversimplified in 2015. For example, it is thrilling to see the fierce, relentless patrolling, assisted by social media, that the young black activists covered in a recent New York Times Magazine piece have been doing to call attention to cops’ abuse of black people. That problem is real and must be fixed, as I have written about frequently, often to the irritation of the Right. However, imagine if there were a squadron of young black people just as bright, angry and relentless devoted to smoking out the bad apples in poor black neighborhoods once and for all, in alliance with the police forces often dedicated to exactly that? I fear we’ll never see it—Antiracism creed forces attention to the rogue cops regardless of whether they are the main problem.

[AndrewV69]

What's a Nubian?

Nubia is known today as Northern Sudan and as I recall several ethnic groups live there. I believe though when people say Nubian this is what they have in mind:
http://jideodukoya.com/wp-content/uploa ... anese1.jpg
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/27/414989 ... 7b3b_o.jpg

[feathers]

Ick. Oolon the Troll is sounding religious. Original sin, listen and believe, the coming Trans People Century... he's testifying righteously, HALLELUJAH! On your knees PZ, cleanse yourself and be accountable to your trans saviors.

http://imgur.com/JyKqSXf.png

"We're all racist in the eyes of POCs, and transphobic in the eyes of trans. Their words are sacred, their accusations require no evidence. Listen to them and believe them."

"We're all sinners in the eyes of God. His words are sacred, and his existence requires no evidence. Listen to the Bible and believe it."

Oolon is the new prophet of the Trans Gospel.

Did it ever occur to Oolon that it doesn't matter how many ("low double digits") transes he knows- they're all either his friends, or dwell in the same neomarxist circles he attends. Try a representative sample, James.

[didymos]

Oh, damn! The hugbox is gone:

PZ Myers

28 July 2015 at 12:54 am

The Lounge is now officially and permanently closed. Thank you for your participation.

[MacGruberKnows]

Oh, damn! The hugbox is gone:

PZ Myers

28 July 2015 at 12:54 am

The Lounge is now officially and permanently closed. Thank you for your participation.

I think he's trying a reboot of his site. He's finally realized that he has a clique of crazies who are driving most of his traffic away. Taking the Lounge and TD away is his way of telling them to fuck off. Not a principled stand, just a pragmatic one.

[SM12]

Oh, damn! The hugbox is gone:

PZ Myers

28 July 2015 at 12:54 am

The Lounge is now officially and permanently closed. Thank you for your participation.

I think he's trying a reboot of his site. He's finally realized that he has a clique of crazies who are driving most of his traffic away. Taking the Lounge and TD away is his way of telling them to fuck off. Not a principled stand, just a pragmatic one.

Perhaps Myers can try another way to become a Horseman. He could try writing a book which millions of people buy.

[didymos]

I think he's trying a reboot of his site. He's finally realized that he has a clique of crazies who are driving most of his traffic away. Taking the Lounge and TD away is his way of telling them to fuck off. Not a principled stand, just a pragmatic one.

I don't think it'll work. That clique of crazies is basically what's left of his audience.

[Guest]

Seriously? He who controls the lounge, controls the horde. He who controls the horde, controls the lulz.

The lulz must flow.

[didymos]

Oh, he wrote a post about it too:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... d-my-mind/

[MacGruberKnows]

Oh, he wrote a post about it too:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... d-my-mind/

He's basically saying in that post that cliques will not be tolerated, that is, the ganging up on commenters by the 'in group'
is over. IE - No more red meat for the baboons. Probably hopes it will be enough to keep Ophelia on FTB, although he seems pretty fed
up with FTB in general.

[feathers]

This is the second spam that B**** has posted in a row. By spam, I mean an advertisement with no other purpose - not posted as a joke or commentary on a topic we're discussing.

I'd like to see him banned like any spambot would be. The only difference between him and a spambot, is that he's doing it to in hopes of pissing people off rather than in hopes of making a sale. It's not like banning someone for their opinion. Unless I'm missing something, there is no opinion in the 2 ads so far. At least, he should be quarantined to some lonely side-thread that no one goes to.

OK, I don't read the turd, but if someone lets me know the next time he does it, he's gone.

So he's one of Them, an agent provocateur waiting for a chance to cry murder?

[Couch]

Why the hate-on for the Appalachian style banjo-playing dude? I admit, I'm not entirely what sure his...reasoning is, but his posts are generally brief and infrequent enough not to tax the scrollwheel too much. Unlike the regular tsunamis of tedium we get from Steersman, for example. The Pit is a pretty free place, and as far as I can see, young William uses that freedom to do his thing without being that much of a pain in the arse about it. Folks need to lighten up, y'all.

I kinda liked his posts (no accounting for taste, YMMV, and all that) and also didn't understand the hate-on. I thought I was missing something - was guessing maybe phonetically 'speaking' Appalachian might have been offensive to some? Is that a thing?

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/state/a-pu ... k_53794739_

[Guest]

From PZ's latest billet-doux.

I must also say that I find the wider community we tried to build at Freethoughtblogs is less a unified group than a disparate collection of loosely affiliated blogs that have found a convenient hosting service, which doesn’t help my mood much, either. We are all objects in space, drifting, occasionally bouncing off each other or tugging gently at each other’s masses. And that’s about it.

So I’m making changes. I’m not even going to try to foster this thing called ‘community’ any more — I will be a cold dark ember of a star, following my own whims, drifting alone, not trying to create a hospitable atmosphere. If you like what I write, read it; if you want to comment on it, write; but I won’t be providing any special places for social interaction. I’ll also be laying down some new commenting rules to break apart any cliques.

Grumpy!

I can't believe he's finally given up on his tireless efforts and will no longer be "trying to create a hospitable atmosphere". It's the horde's own fault for never learning how to breathe their own methane and hydrogen sulphide.

[Kirbmarc]

Oh, he wrote a post about it too:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... d-my-mind/

So I’m making changes. I’m not even going to try to foster this thing called ‘community’ any more — I will be a cold dark ember of a star, following my own whims, drifting alone, not trying to create a hospitable atmosphere. If you like what I write, read it; if you want to comment on it, write; but I won’t be providing any special places for social interaction. I’ll also be laying down some new commenting rules to break apart any cliques

FTB is basically over. PZ has lost, badly, and now needs to carry on as a mere blogger among bloggers. Now the dissident Hordeletes will either move on to greener pastures or be heavily moderated into extinction. People like oolon or Gilliel will gradually disappear from Pharyngula and the other blogs. PZ will be left with a crowd of brown-nosers who will write platitudes to approve everything he writes. They'll be people like theophontes, rq, maybe Nick Gotts and a few others (like Nerd of Redhead) who simply worship PZ no matter what he does.

[Couch]

D'oh....

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/state/a-pu ... _53794739_

[deLurch]

Oh, he wrote a post about it too:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... d-my-mind/

So I’m making changes. I’m not even going to try to foster this thing called ‘community’ any more — I will be a cold dark ember of a star, following my own whims, drifting alone, not trying to create a hospitable atmosphere. If you like what I write, read it; if you want to comment on it, write; but I won’t be providing any special places for social interaction. I’ll also be laying down some new commenting rules to break apart any cliques

FTB is basically over. PZ has lost, badly, and now needs to carry on as a mere blogger among bloggers. Now the dissident Hordeletes will either move on to greener pastures or be heavily moderated into extinction. People like oolon or Gilliel will gradually disappear from Pharyngula and the other blogs. PZ will be left with a crowd of brown-nosers who will write platitudes to approve everything he writes. They'll be people like theophontes, rq, maybe Nick Gotts and a few others (like Nerd of Redhead) who simply worship PZ no matter what he does.

OK. I am kind of doubting pz and his hordlettes will change much. Their special forums are gone. But they still have his threads. The only thing that really bothered pz is that they finally went after Ophelia. The next time pz wants an attack horde, I can guarantee you that he will whip them into a feeding frenzy for his own benefit and enjoyment. He has been playing this game for far to long to give it up on a dime.

Michael N. is about the only person offering pz an olive branch that would actually show that pz is willing to make a change. And it is a fair honest one. It isn't just about Michael N's ego. If so Michael would have let that bad boy drop a long time ago.

[Brive1987]

There are no words to communicate the rolling thunder of lolz.

"Lounge closed motherfucker". Oh my god.

http://i.imgur.com/2pSErXu.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

I also don't know any GG personalities that would say GG was about ethics and NOT at all about SJ nonsense. Most would say the ethical issues are directly about the overwhelming influence of SJ nonsense corrupting journalism and corrupting the games.

It depends. Some of them like Aurini, Milo and possibly Sargon seem to think the root of all evils is SJW feminism. Others seem to think ethics violations can exist separate from SJW shit. Still others believe it's a combination problem.

My position is that gaming journalism has been corrupt from day 1 and long before SJWism came along.

I think that your position isn't wrong per se, but definitely lacks some nuance in its exposition. Ethics violation exist regardless of SJWs, but a fight against SJWs infiltration of gaming isn't necessarily "anti-feminism". SJW feminism isn't the only interpretation of feminism. There are some "flavors" of feminism which aren't concerned with "exposing fictional representation of sexism" or other dogmatic horsecrap but with real problems of women's rights in the real world (especially in some countries where women still don't have legal rights).

Fighting and ridiculing the SJW flavor of radical feminism is what the Slymepit does. I don't see anything wrong with that, and it's not "anti-feminism" as much as a support for humanism and egalitarianism against the SJW nuttery.

Aurini, Milo and others have jumped on the bandwagon and some of them are completely "anti-feminists", as they actually support the ideas a society where women have less legal and social/economical rights. Aurini surely does, and so do the other "usual suspects" (VoxDay, RamZPaul, warcorpse, most commenters and many writers on AVFM etc.). Milo's beef seem to be with trans people in general and not just with the demanding, authoritarian attitude of SJW trans right activists.

I believe that it's right to fight back against SJW feminism and SJW infiltration of subcultures and their authoritarian attitudes. I think that groups like GamerGate, the Pit, the Sad Puppies and others are a natural and welcome reaction to the SJW dogmatic extremism.

I also think that critical thinking, skepticism and a support for democratic and liberal principles (equality before the law, due process, the right to vote, be a candidate in an election, or marry for everyone, free speech, etc.) are important values to be defended against all of the enemies of those values: religious fundamentalists, SJWs, extremist conservatives, Marxists, fascists, Nazists, etc.

In this respect sadly GameGate and Sad Puppies have allowed some dogmatic, illiberal bastards to get some spotlight and acceptance simply because they're enemies of a common enemy (the SJWs). The Pit fares better because we're not afraid to the tell the illiberal ideologues of any color to fuck off (as we did to the Fascist Steersbot).

But fighting against the illiberalism of SJWs is a very good idea, even if some people do it for the wrong reasons.

I also think you've underestimating the indirect authoritarianism of people like Anita Sarkeesian. She's not simply "a vlogger". She's an influential vlogger who got several awards and exposes some theories that more influential people might use to support authoritarian laws. She might not say "Ban this sick filth!" like Jack Thompson, but others might exploit her success to make it disappear.

I don't believe the conspiracy theories that she's doing this deliberately or that she's an agent of the Illuminati or whatever. However her success is to seen with some concern. Her ideas are ridiculously stupid and prudish and often factually wrong, and the fact that she gets awards as a humanist is a travesty. But that's not what worries me.

What worries me are the politicians who might take advantage of her success to pass illiberal laws against violent or "sexist" video games or against porn. Politicians always want to exploit the latest moral outrage to get more power over their citizen's lives. And there are plenty of busybodies who hate "violent" or "filthy" works of arts and popular culture on both sides of the aisle. Many of the "moral majority" also hate video games and blame them for any sort of violence. Anita's success indirectly (and maybe unwittingly on her part) helps those people to look saner than they are.

On her own Anita Sarkeesian isn't the problem. If she didn't have any success people should largely ignore her. She'd a slightly less insane femintheist: a vlogger nobody.

However her success is a source of concern, because if her ideas inspired some policies those policies would be incredibly bad, even if she doesn't directly argue for those policies,

So yes, people need to criticize and even mock and ridicule Sarkeesian and McIntosh. The conspiracy theories on them are equally dumb and deserve mockery, but they're not as harmless as you think (IMHO).

[SM12]

Myers claims the problems were caused basically by outsiders. The guy is embarrassing.

Remember the days when Myers could Pharyngulate a poll and have 20,000 votes on it appearing in 2 hours?

Now I bet Myers dreams of a speaking gig at a big place like Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire

[Michael J]

Oh, he wrote a post about it too:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... d-my-mind/

So I’m making changes. I’m not even going to try to foster this thing called ‘community’ any more — I will be a cold dark ember of a star, following my own whims, drifting alone, not trying to create a hospitable atmosphere. If you like what I write, read it; if you want to comment on it, write; but I won’t be providing any special places for social interaction. I’ll also be laying down some new commenting rules to break apart any cliques

FTB is basically over. PZ has lost, badly, and now needs to carry on as a mere blogger among bloggers. Now the dissident Hordeletes will either move on to greener pastures or be heavily moderated into extinction. People like oolon or Gilliel will gradually disappear from Pharyngula and the other blogs. PZ will be left with a crowd of brown-nosers who will write platitudes to approve everything he writes. They'll be people like theophontes, rq, maybe Nick Gotts and a few others (like Nerd of Redhead) who simply worship PZ no matter what he does.

Does this mean that we've won?

Reading the whole post it is obvious that PZ is disappointed not just because of the commentators but also because the other bloggers didn't form a cohesive group. It wouldn't surprise me to see other bloggers start to peel themselves off when Ophelia leaves.

[SM12]

Myers writes 'We are all objects in space, drifting, occasionally bouncing off each other or tugging gently at each other’s masses. '

He missed out 'occasionally bouncing spunk off each other's faces.' Or is that a different blogger?

[feathers]

Do only the most qualified people get jobs as brain surgeons in Wisconsin?

One would hope so, and not only in Wisconsin, but one should never ignore the possibility that ambition, politics and cronyism play a role in such matters.

[James Caruthers]

James, what allows you to youngpunksplain to CH Sommers as to whether she is a real feminist or not?
Also what is up with you and "Anita" being on first name basis? Are you a deep cover troll trying to index us ? :think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, both of which are critical of contemporary feminism.

Sommers is known for her criticisms of contemporary feminism. She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with what she calls "victim" or "gender feminism",[2] arguing that modern feminist thought often contains an "irrational hostility to men" and possesses an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different".[2] Other scholars and feminists have called her works and positions anti-feminist.[3][4][5][6][7] Sommers rejects claims that she is opposed to feminism.[8]

Whether one considers her feminist or antifeminist is very much a matter of interpretation. She considers herself feminist but she seems to spend much of her time arguing against feminism and she had to create her own kind of feminism to explain how she's actually a feminist while also being against most feminism that exists in practice.

Sommers has also written about Title IX and the shortage of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. She opposes recent efforts to apply Title IX to the sciences[28] because, she says, "Science is not a sport. In science, men and women play on the same teams. ... There are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms."[29] Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements.

I don't think it's unfair to call her antifeminist if arguing solely on her positions.

https://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/

This conservative think tank either employs her or works with her.

Totally depends on the definition(s) you're allowing for "feminism". IMO using "anti-feminism" to describe critiques of specific "waves" of feminism, but not all of feminism, is a pretty blatant attempt to frame the argument in a way that puts the critiqued position(s) in the most positive light.

Only if you think antifeminism is wrong by default, or antifeminist positions are wrong and bad by default. And I don't. I'm trying to accurately categorize people by their behavior, not what they call themselves.

And framing the position of Sommers as "anti-SJW" would also be very flawed, because her oppositions to feminism go well beyond online SJW feminism, as evidenced by the Title IX example. Whatever you think of it, I believe it would be unfair to characterize an attempt to give women equal access to all kinds of jobs as merely 'SJW tumblr feminism.' It might be misguided or wrong, but it seems like pretty typical big-F "Feminism" to me. It's the kind of shit that happens in the real world, offline.

Also, I just want to say again, Sommers had to invent her own kind of feminism (equity feminism), and then she uses the feminism she invented to claim she's a feminist while basically arguing against the other kinds of feminism. That would be like me inventing my own brand of social justice and then spending all my time talking about how shitty all the other social justice is. But oh, I'm a social justice warrior because I've defined myself to be one!

I'm not saying she's wrong and bad. I AM saying she's probably not a feminist unless you use her special definitions she invented. If you go by the issues and her staunch opposition to and criticism of most forms of feminism, she's antifeminist. More specifically, I think (this part is just my opinion) she's a conservative antifeminist. So if you are a conservative antifeminist, you might like her even more after hearing me say that.

[Brive1987]

Link to the last lounge.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... 2/#respond

[Brive1987]

Last mended drum.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ed-drum-2/

[German StrutBoatsman]

I can't believe he's finally given up on his tireless efforts and will no longer be "trying to create a hospitable atmosphere". It's the horde's own fault for never learning how to breathe their own methane and hydrogen sulphide.

And the whole stick started once with the goal of creating a more safe, inclusive and inviting-to-all movement.

Who could've guessed all could go so wrong? After basically making feminists the monitors of the movement, with all the great history feminism has in maintaining open and inviting spaces?

[James Caruthers]

Anti-feminist hijackers notwithstanding, GamerGate the hashtag started as two things:

1) Outrage at 15 or so of the top game "journalism" blogs for a) their collusion in the Zoey Quinn crapola and b) their constant SJW-style haranguing at gamers that they were all a bunch of pasty-white misogynistic shitheads living in Mom's basement, and

2) A bunch of women and/or POCs that were reacting against part b) above for being "erased", etc. by the blogs and saying, "hey, we are gamers too, jackholes."

As for EA and all the corporate stuff? Yes, yes, we know all about it. There are several reasons EA is the most hated game developer, and all the crap associated with their PR campaigns has been talked about ad nauseum. But everyone expects this from corporate gaming. People were pissed about the blogs' shitty behaviour because they set themselves up as anti-corporate, and then they started to shit all over the gamers.

But see, this is actually my point.

1) Was heavily SJW-influenced and this was the starting point for a lot of people to saying "we need gamergate to be about destroying these evil SJWs in our video game spaces!" The Five Guys thing was like, the start of the SJW wing of GG.

The Quinn thing also... I mean nothing was really ever proven and the ex retracted his story, or so I hear. It's certainly got some interesting implications and very probable people were colluding. Definitely these folks run a circlejerk kind of environment where they promote the people who they agree with, but you see that on YouTube all the time too. In fact, I think you could get more incriminating evidence than the Zoepost by following someone like Amazing Atheist or Mr. Repzion, with the way they cross-promote and shill for each other.

I agree that article writers for clickbait rags shouldn't be insulting their audiences if they don't want people to boycott them.

2) That whole drama was dumb imo. YMMV, but #notyourshield was gamergate trying to out-SJW the SJWs by saying "look! We have nonwhites and nonmales in our movement!" But it never mattered either way. SJWs could always claim it was tokenism/self-hatred. It came across as trying to be too politically correct, which I guess I should be happy about since I'm a fucking SJW piece of shit!!!! But in practice it was an angry keyboard war to see who could stack up minorities and claim the other side didn't have enough nonwhite nonmales.

Or that's how it seemed to me, as an outsider reading those tweets. Big ol' keyboard flamewar. But then, I'm on the Pit. :dance:

I guess part of the big problem here was people expecting better from the "anti-corporate" or smaller-scale journalists. But they really shouldn't have expected anything different, because of the same market realities that lead to very poor journalism in all other areas of media. I suppose it was part of the wave of optimism that hit when indie games were starting to get big and really creative shit like Cave Story were new. Games journalists were starting to cover the indies and there was an impression that maybe indies would spark a rebirth to get away from DRM, on-disc DLC, unfinished, buggy AAA games released with patches coming months later (if at all) and the scores of other problems with the big games companies.

I think it's valid to question whether antifeminists were really hijackers or whether antifeminism (or anti-SJWism if you prefer) was to some extent inherent in Gamergate.

[James Caruthers]

It depends. Some of them like Aurini, Milo and possibly Sargon seem to think the root of all evils is SJW feminism. Others seem to think ethics violations can exist separate from SJW shit. Still others believe it's a combination problem.

My position is that gaming journalism has been corrupt from day 1 and long before SJWism came along.

I think that your position isn't wrong per se, but definitely lacks some nuance in its exposition. Ethics violation exist regardless of SJWs, but a fight against SJWs infiltration of gaming isn't necessarily "anti-feminism". SJW feminism isn't the only interpretation of feminism. There are some "flavors" of feminism which aren't concerned with "exposing fictional representation of sexism" or other dogmatic horsecrap but with real problems of women's rights in the real world (especially in some countries where women still don't have legal rights).

Fighting and ridiculing the SJW flavor of radical feminism is what the Slymepit does. I don't see anything wrong with that, and it's not "anti-feminism" as much as a support for humanism and egalitarianism against the SJW nuttery.

Aurini, Milo and others have jumped on the bandwagon and some of them are completely "anti-feminists", as they actually support the ideas a society where women have less legal and social/economical rights. Aurini surely does, and so do the other "usual suspects" (VoxDay, RamZPaul, warcorpse, most commenters and many writers on AVFM etc.). Milo's beef seem to be with trans people in general and not just with the demanding, authoritarian attitude of SJW trans right activists.

I believe that it's right to fight back against SJW feminism and SJW infiltration of subcultures and their authoritarian attitudes. I think that groups like GamerGate, the Pit, the Sad Puppies and others are a natural and welcome reaction to the SJW dogmatic extremism.

I also think that critical thinking, skepticism and a support for democratic and liberal principles (equality before the law, due process, the right to vote, be a candidate in an election, or marry for everyone, free speech, etc.) are important values to be defended against all of the enemies of those values: religious fundamentalists, SJWs, extremist conservatives, Marxists, fascists, Nazists, etc.

In this respect sadly GameGate and Sad Puppies have allowed some dogmatic, illiberal bastards to get some spotlight and acceptance simply because they're enemies of a common enemy (the SJWs). The Pit fares better because we're not afraid to the tell the illiberal ideologues of any color to fuck off (as we did to the Fascist Steersbot).

But fighting against the illiberalism of SJWs is a very good idea, even if some people do it for the wrong reasons.

I also think you've underestimating the indirect authoritarianism of people like Anita Sarkeesian. She's not simply "a vlogger". She's an influential vlogger who got several awards and exposes some theories that more influential people might use to support authoritarian laws. She might not say "Ban this sick filth!" like Jack Thompson, but others might exploit her success to make it disappear.

I don't believe the conspiracy theories that she's doing this deliberately or that she's an agent of the Illuminati or whatever. However her success is to seen with some concern. Her ideas are ridiculously stupid and prudish and often factually wrong, and the fact that she gets awards as a humanist is a travesty. But that's not what worries me.

What worries me are the politicians who might take advantage of her success to pass illiberal laws against violent or "sexist" video games or against porn. Politicians always want to exploit the latest moral outrage to get more power over their citizen's lives. And there are plenty of busybodies who hate "violent" or "filthy" works of arts and popular culture on both sides of the aisle. Many of the "moral majority" also hate video games and blame them for any sort of violence. Anita's success indirectly (and maybe unwittingly on her part) helps those people to look saner than they are.

On her own Anita Sarkeesian isn't the problem. If she didn't have any success people should largely ignore her. She'd a slightly less insane femintheist: a vlogger nobody.

However her success is a source of concern, because if her ideas inspired some policies those policies would be incredibly bad, even if she doesn't directly argue for those policies,

So yes, people need to criticize and even mock and ridicule Sarkeesian and McIntosh. The conspiracy theories on them are equally dumb and deserve mockery, but they're not as harmless as you think (IMHO).

Hmm. That was a very good post, and explained well.

Regarding Anita, I tend to think of her as another shitty pop culture critic I can ignore. I realize that if enough people listened to her and believed, perhaps she could start banning games or something if she wanted to do that. But I get the impression from her videos, and I don't know how correct this is, that her ideal solution would for those 'sexist' games to continue existing and for people to just make less 'sexist' games in the future. But those old games would still be around to play and enjoy.

I realize that could be considered a type of soft censorship. Essentially what she is doing, what all cultural critics do and what most social justice advocates (both the real kind and the SJWs) do is a form of peer pressure. They're pushing for what they see as better ideas. In this case, better "tropes." Better in the sense that Anita thinks they're less harmful.

Now, I usually don't agree with Anita and my reaction to her shitty content is to ignore it. I haven't yet noticed her having any ability to influence my video games. Her ideas are usually wrong and she does seem like a prude at times, like you say. I dunno, I don't spend a lot of time wondering what Rush Limbaugh thinks about Skyrim. It should be kind of the same deal with Anita Sarkeesian. I'm not sure if she's an authoritarian though. That's one thing that people say that recently I'm kind of wondering. Is she really calling to impose sweeping laws on how others should live, or is she just giving her opinion on what she thinks is better?

I don't know if academia can really have any effect on video games beyond bitching about them. I personally wouldn't mind if some of the skirts in video games were a little longer, speaking just for myself. So maybe we can let the SJW corruption seep just that much into our bideo james.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Where's Justin Vacula at? He has so many things he has to denounce!

He's exchanged skepticism for low-stakes poker.

I'm playing poker full-time now as my sole source of income.

There have also been developments in my lawsuit concerning the rejected 'Atheists' bus ads. It's a slow process, though. I'm also still leading my local freethought group and now am attending meeetups with a group here in the Allentown area in which I now live.

We tease. But do what you love. Life is far too short to fuck around with anything else.

[Brive1987]

Have we seen this?

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/07/28 ... of-hatred/

[Brive1987]

I sense a deal between PZ and OB.

With Alex and Jason? Not so much.

[Scented Nectar]

Yup. Looked kinda like real advertisement, but no marketer would do it that way. Plus the poster has a human history, not a bot. I had simply assumed the joke went over my head.

B**** might be the only one who gets the joke. :bjarte:

Wait a minute. Maybe that was a subtle joke at Scented Nectar's preference for BIG things.

[youtube]pLdJQFTnZfA[/youtube]

SN: decent song / video. I'm not a fan of the band, but I liked a few songs on this first record.

Yeah, it looks like they've heard the parallel parking joke, with the candy being a misleading measuring stick. :) I'm not very familiar with the band, and I'm definitely not a fan of their 'easy listening' mainstream style (or whatever that kind of stuff is called these days). I guess that's why I thought the picture was just some advertisement.

[Guest]

Also, I just want to say again, Sommers had to invent her own kind of feminism (equity feminism), and then she uses the feminism she invented to claim she's a feminist while basically arguing against the other kinds of feminism. That would be like me inventing my own brand of social justice and then spending all my time talking about how shitty all the other social justice is. But oh, I'm a social justice warrior because I've defined myself to be one!

I'm not saying she's wrong and bad. I AM saying she's probably not a feminist unless you use her special definitions she invented. If you go by the issues and her staunch opposition to and criticism of most forms of feminism, she's antifeminist. More specifically, I think (this part is just my opinion) she's a conservative antifeminist. So if you are a conservative antifeminist, you might like her even more after hearing me say that.

Equity feminism is pretty much equal to libertarian feminism is pretty much equal to individualist feminism. See Stanford's Plato.

And she didn't invent that term. The wiki entry on her, which IIRC, she disputes and is frustrated with, says:

She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with what she calls "victim" or "gender feminism",[2]

then cites web.archive.org/web/20090117085529/aei.org/docLib/20090108_ContemporaryFeminism.pdf (check the cite yourself, since as a guest, I can only post mangled urls). But that pdf of hers says the following:

I am not here to urge you to reject I am a passionate supporter of that style of feminism, which I call equity feminism.

She may have coined the term "equity feminism", but she is referring to "old-fashioned classical feminism of the sort that won women the vote, educational opportunity and many other freedoms" and she did not invent that.

Even so though, your logic is flawed.

That would be like me inventing my own brand of social justice and then spending all my time talking about how shitty all the other social justice is. But oh, I'm a social justice warrior because I've defined myself to be one!

No, to equal what you claim she has done you would have to write 2 - 3 decades of academic papers, rigorously defining your new style of SJ, convincing other academics, and then wider society to accept your definitions, and then we would all agree that whether we agree with your critiques or not, there really is a Caruther's style of SJ different from Sommers', different from Watson's.

[Crabman]

The chickens finally came home to roost for ole PZ, so he did what people have been urging him to do for years - reign in the clique of crazies that was fucking up the site.

But he dug in too long and is too graceless to admit anything of the sort and still tries to play it off as if it wasn't a problem he caused, nurtured and the consequences of which wasn't explained to him long ago. Turning what could have been an overall conciliatory gesture into a fuck you to both his whackadoodle legion and any lurkers or former commenters that were driven away.

Too little, too late. If you'd acted back when Chris Clarke was hounded away maybe people would have swallowed the idea that you were just too wrapped in to the situation to see it clearly, and that having a co-blogger quit over the toxicity you fostered was something that made you snap out of it.

Even after all the bullshit he's created, and the viciousness he applauded when directed to someone like me for disagreeing, I don't want to see him close up shop like A+. I'd rather he focus on what got him an audience of mostly sane people in the first place. Some science news, biology discussion, atheism issues. Maybe he can even realize that (christian) creationism is a dead issue and that the real enemy to science, skepticism and secular society right now is Islam. He did once upon a time.

[Kirbmarc]

Regarding Anita, I tend to think of her as another shitty pop culture critic I can ignore. I realize that if enough people listened to her and believed, perhaps she could start banning games or something if she wanted to do that. But I get the impression from her videos, and I don't know how correct this is, that her ideal solution would for those 'sexist' games to continue existing and for people to just make less 'sexist' games in the future. But those old games would still be around to play and enjoy.

I'm sure that Sarkeesian isn't as authoritarian as other people in her movement are. If she only advocated "better" games I'd ignore her too. However at times (like in the Hitman video) she seems to advocate the idea that some video games incite people to commit crimes in the real world or create/cater to perverts who would "harm women". That's a dangerously stupid idea to have, and one that advocates of censorship everywhere love to promote.

My beef isn't with Sarkeesian as a person. However politicians have passed or have tried to pass really bad laws inspired by SJW policies (like campus kangoroo courts and "enthusiastic consent" laws). Sarkeesian's success is dangerous in this respect. People like Elizabeth Warren or Jerry Brown might be tempted by Sarky's success and support in "humanist" circles to write laws that censor "sexist" video games. Fundies might hop on the bandwagon and add "violent" video games too.

It can happen regardless of what Sarkeesian thinks of it.

Her ideas are usually wrong and she does seem like a prude at times, like you say. I dunno, I don't spend a lot of time wondering what Rush Limbaugh thinks about Skyrim.

Me neither, but Rush Limbaugh isn't dealing heavily with video games as part of his job. If Limbaugh started a series of videos on "demonic video games" I'd think about him, too.

I'm not sure if she's an authoritarian though. That's one thing that people say that recently I'm kind of wondering. Is she really calling to impose sweeping laws on how others should live, or is she just giving her opinion on what she thinks is better?

I'm not sure of it myself (although I tend to think she is, especially since she's so convinced that video games causes changes in real life), but ultimately it doesn't matter if some SJW-friendly politician uses her "analysis" to argue that video games cause sexism and so have to be curbed for "the greater good".

Sarkeesian is just the tip of the iceberg of authoritarian SJW policies, which do exist. Maybe she's not in favor of them, maybe she is, but she's enabling them and her popularity and support by some influential people (like Joss Whedon) might help the authoritarians to pass the laws they want.

[Cunt of Personality]

Regarding Anita, I tend to think of her as another shitty pop culture critic I can ignore. I realize that if enough people listened to her and believed, perhaps she could start banning games or something if she wanted to do that. But I get the impression from her videos, and I don't know how correct this is, that her ideal solution would for those 'sexist' games to continue existing and for people to just make less 'sexist' games in the future. But those old games would still be around to play and enjoy.

I'm sure that Sarkeesian isn't as authoritarian as other people in her movement are. If she only advocated "better" games I'd ignore her too. However at times (like in the Hitman video) she seems to advocate the idea that some video games incite people to commit crimes in the real world or create/cater to perverts who would "harm women". That's a dangerously stupid idea to have, and one that advocates of censorship everywhere love to promote.

My beef isn't with Sarkeesian as a person. However politicians have passed or have tried to pass really bad laws inspired by SJW policies (like campus kangoroo courts and "enthusiastic consent" laws). Sarkeesian's success is dangerous in this respect. People like Elizabeth Warren or Jerry Brown might be tempted by Sarky's success and support in "humanist" circles to write laws that censor "sexist" video games. Fundies might hop on the bandwagon and add "violent" video games too.

It can happen regardless of what Sarkeesian thinks of it.

Her ideas are usually wrong and she does seem like a prude at times, like you say. I dunno, I don't spend a lot of time wondering what Rush Limbaugh thinks about Skyrim.

Me neither, but Rush Limbaugh isn't dealing heavily with video games as part of his job. If Limbaugh started a series of videos on "demonic video games" I'd think about him, too.

I'm not sure if she's an authoritarian though. That's one thing that people say that recently I'm kind of wondering. Is she really calling to impose sweeping laws on how others should live, or is she just giving her opinion on what she thinks is better?

I'm not sure of it myself (although I tend to think she is, especially since she's so convinced that video games causes changes in real life), but ultimately it doesn't matter if some SJW-friendly politician uses her "analysis" to argue that video games cause sexism and so have to be curbed for "the greater good".

Sarkeesian is just the tip of the iceberg of authoritarian SJW policies, which do exist. Maybe she's not in favor of them, maybe she is, but she's enabling them and her popularity and support by some influential people (like Joss Whedon) might help the authoritarians to pass the laws they want.