"Mens Rights Activists" Impersonate Domestic Violence Organization online. Hilarity ensues.

That program will do the same thing no matter what input it gets. I'm left wondering whether you have absolutely no idea how programming works, or if your program is intended to show that genders of oppressors, oppressed, and so forth have nothing to do with whether or not someone warrants defense, which is in fact the correct outcome.

Much like its author.

Do you guys have any idea how stupid you look critiquing something being used to make a point?

And you SJWs shouldn't be talking about someone doing the same thing no matter what input it gets.

@Archangel

He's free to use that definition if he wants. That's not the problem. The problem is that he doesn't actually understand the definition, and is therefore applying the term incorrectly. I can't speak for all of us who he has labeled, but I've never visited livejournal, just as an example.

The text you used to make your point argues against your own points in two separate ways: By demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the "community" you claim to know better than us, and by explicitly saying that and why the stance you are attacking is actually the rational choice.

I'd be lying if I said I haven't run into far more of the type of SJW mentioned in Archangel's link in those places than not, though. The ones who act like their is the only discrimination that matters or is important.

There are those in every single online community, some way more than others.

Like Anita Sarkeesian's boyfriend did on Twitter.
Like I said, a pox on both houses.

So I wonder which Twitter account is @Archangel 's?

http://femfreq.tumblr.com

I thought vehement hatred of bigots was de rigeur 'round these parts? Why come down on Dicky for doing as the Romans when in Rome?

That is why you all don't really understand attention whoring for profit.

So once again, you don't really understand the community like you think you do. It's not some 1950 model like you have in your heads.

True internet trolls and attention whore are quite adept at manipulating people....like yourselves.

But the binary in your head can't comprehend that.....damsel in distress good....evil sexist males bad....

No you're making yourself look stupid because these "death" and "rape" threats are from a very dedicated group of internet trolls who do what they do just to make morons get all worked up. As is plainly evident, it's working beautifully on people who don't understand how bad some trolls are.

Since you all can't comprehend that, you take them at face value and as representatives of gamer culture.

4chan is pretty much the sewer of the internet when it comes to lowest of the low trolls, but again "outsiders" don't know that.

You've also been shown that many women and minorities have distanced themselves from this professional victim, yet you continue to ignore it.

I know everything I'm telling you is just bouncing off of your cast iron heads and you all still see it as a simple binary issue....with the evil men of gaming oppressing the women. If there is so much oppression, where are the hordes of oppressed? There's just one, showing off her hate mail...and my personal favorite of canceling that speaking engagement because she's too afraid....LOL, yeah right.

But you all eat it up and rush to her defense.

A parting thought to you.

We're at the timewarp stage of this argument now: Everything @Archangel just said was answered in @Quest's post preceding it.

No we're in the idiot WF SJW part of the argument.

This post is laughably wrong, and makes it pretty clear that you haven't even read much of what we've said in this and other threads on the topic. Starting with the assumption that we don't know what 4chan is, that's just blatant ignorance on your part, and comical considering that your main argument rests on this mistaken idea.

Well, that's an easily disprovable lie right there.

So in the face of all evidence, you still refuse to believe that anyone other than straight white males are participating in GamerGate? Or that advertisers have in fact pulled ads from sites like Gawker and Kotaku? What, you didn't see any of the butthurt when Intel pulled their ads? Really? You haven't seen any of the videos featuring the faces of #NotYourShield?

At one time, I would have pointed to a video by Internet Aristocrat, but he rage quit the internet and deleted all his videos. This competition and 4chan coming to the rescue of it is the origin of Vivian James, though.

The very specific clauses about revealing relationships between the reporters and the subjects of their reports, or other possible conflicts of interest, and the requirement of their reporters to avoid such conflicts of interest. These are the things actually stressed by GamerGate. The interesting thing is that while some of the people working for The Escapist are anti-GamerGate, The Escapist itself had taken a very neutral stance from very early on, and allowed conversation to take place on their site where others heavily censored any such discussion.

Social justice warriors are the new moral crusaders, as they operate in much the same way. They are convinced their own morality is the only "right" morality, and that they make up the majority of people where ever they happen to find themselves. If anyone or anything runs afoul of their sensibilities, their favorite tactic is to try to publicly shame these persons, organizations, etc., using any means at their disposal, including outright making shit up because in their mind, they are justified in doing so so long as it's for a good cause.

Advertisers pulled ads from Gawker and Kotaku because they bowed to pressure from the Gamergaters. Who's to say they didn't do so because they believe straight white males are their customer base?

Them. They all made statements about exactly why it was they pulled their ads.

What gives you the impression that I refuse to believe nay of that?

Ok, yes. That makes sense.

The part where you say they only make sense if you agree with GamerGate.

Yes. It's only good for diverse crowds to join in with, and advertisers to give in to, GamerGate, if Gamer Gate is itself good. So that doesn't count as improving anything by itself.

I wasn't responding to anything about how GamerGate has "improved" anything, I was responding to the statement that the only defense GamerGate seemed to have, in your opinion, was to distance itself from its "more visible" aspects, as in the popular narrative those on the anti- side have spun about it only being about harassing women, and how supposedly only straight, white men were on the pro- side. As for advertisers "giving in" to GamerGate, hardly. I won't say that there weren't threats of boycott, but the more organized campaigns were all about just showing advertisers what kind of vitriolic rhetoric their ads were being shown next to that was directed toward their own customer base. Like all the shit being spewed about gamers who would theoretically by stuff from Intel, right next to an ad by Intel. Kind of easy to see why Intel might pull its ads in that situation, isn't it?

Ok. So I agree that there is some good coming from GamerGate. Why a push to treat personal relationships entangled with published game criticism should start with a spurned boyfriend's blog about how his girlfriend treated him badly is a bit beyond me, but still. Point taken.

Do you see any good from GamerGate coupled with Men's Rights Activism? Disclosing personal bias for reviews isn't primarily about that, as far as I can see.

The "Quinnspiracy" that resulted from that jilted ex writing a tell-all was more about her using her sexual relationships to get better coverage and better reviews for her various projects. It grew from that into what came to be known as GamerGate because a lot of these game journalists are buddy-buddy with one another and conspired to eliminate coverage of the issue, use their connections in with the administration of various social media sites to censor discussion of it, and to talk up Zoe Quinn and her projects instead. This then changed to casting her as the victim of a harassment campaign, and a coordinated release of various attack articles that all focused on how the term "Gamer" was dead, and what horrible people anyone who used the term to describe themselves supposedly all were. Also how supposedly only bigoted, straight, white men used the term and supported GamerGate, which was coined by Adam Baldwin, which is how NotYourShield was born. Also how Socks from NEET Life came up with her handle, as anyone claiming to be a woman and pro-GamerGate were labeled as sockpuppets by the anti- side.

As for Men's Rights Activism, I honestly don't see much of that, so much as a push back against an extreme form of feminism and the attitude of so-called social justice warriors. There are some MRAs commenting on it from time to time, but most of the association seems to come from the assertion from the anti- side that the only people who oppose them are all misogynist MRAs. These people are calling old school feminists like Christina Hoff Summers misogynist for not being lock-step with them, and considering the other bullshit that the anti- side tends to spew, it isn't really surprising to me that there's been an attempt to paint GamerGaters with the same brush they've been painting MRAs with, since MRAs are apparently their ultimate enemy or something.

That story would make a lot of sense.

But look, as a counterpoint, to the way this thread developed. It started off being about a fraudulent MRA organisation. In its defense, we got criticism of Sarkeesian's gender analysis of video games. This brought us to threats of rape and violence, and in their defense, we got references to GamerGate. So it's not me who paints MRA as opposed to gender studies, gender studies as opposed to gaming, and GamerGate as a defense of misogynist hate mail. Can you still rmemeber why you are posting on the topic of GamerGate at all in a thread about MRAs, and eventually about Sarkeesian? Did Sarkeesian argue against unbiased game reviews?