Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

This is the place to talk about all things Star Control.

Moderator: ZFP Peacekeepers

User avatar
Kwayne
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:36 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Contact:

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Kwayne »

chenjesuwizard, sorry to say this, but personally I don't see your standards for evidence convincingly better than that of Nuclear's. It seems to me that you belittle whatever he presents as a reference, misinterpret his motives and use unwarranted and cheap labeling.

But I guess I'm a womanhater now. After all, all it takes for a new-age internet feminist, or a religious fundamentalist, or a political extremist to be "right" is to put a label on anybody perceived being even slightly on the opposing side. It clearly serves as a good half solution of the problem until they legalise the killing of these pesky misogynists.
chenjesuwizard
Malfunctioning M:bot
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by chenjesuwizard »

Kwayne wrote:chenjesuwizard, sorry to say this, but personally I don't see your standards for evidence convincingly better than that of Nuclear's. It seems to me that you belittle whatever he presents as a reference, misinterpret his motives and use unwarranted and cheap labeling.
How? I clearly didn't think I was mislabelling him or belittling him, so please explain so I can adjust my reasoning proportionally.
User avatar
Lukipela
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 2882
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:03 pm
Location: Dead World

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Lukipela »

Kwayne wrote:chenjesuwizard, sorry to say this, but personally I don't see your standards for evidence convincingly better than that of Nuclear's. It seems to me that you belittle whatever he presents as a reference, misinterpret his motives and use unwarranted and cheap labeling.

But I guess I'm a womanhater now. After all, all it takes for a new-age internet feminist, or a religious fundamentalist, or a political extremist to be "right" is to put a label on anybody perceived being even slightly on the opposing side. It clearly serves as a good half solution of the problem until they legalise the killing of these pesky misogynists.
Kwayne, sorry to say this, but personally I don't see your standards for judging evidence as convincingly better than that of chenjesuwizard's. It seems to me that you belittle whatever he presents as a rebuttal, misinterpret his motives and use unwarranted and cheap labeling.

But I guess I'm a gamerhater now. After all, all it takes for a new-age internet realist, or a atheist fundamentalist, or a gaming extremist to be "right" is to put a label on anybody perceived being even slightly on the opposing side. It clearly serves as a good half solution of the problem until they legalise the killing of these pesky misandrists.

Man this is a fun opinion game we're playing. What's next?
User avatar
Kwayne
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:36 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Contact:

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Kwayne »

At the time of writing my comment I didn't have much time to present my case -- I had to go work -- still I was worried this thread gets locked before I get to express my worries about this exchange of blows. It worked out as it did, not my best piece of comment, however I feel it doesn't deserve Luki's instant dismissal. I'm glad though that chenjesuwizard is more open minded.

chenjesuwizard, the briefest explanation I got for my comment is that it was triggered by you saying Nuclear is a misogynist, however I fail to understand how did he deserve such a title. He didn't so far show any sign of hating, discriminating against or sexually objectifying women. So as long as the definition of misogyny didn't get stretched further than I thought when I wasn't looking, I can only raise an eyebrow and remember how many times I was labeled either a communist or a fascist without my "opponents" having any need to actually know what either communism or fascism is, even though I mostly represent my own interests. In those cases it was clear that I was declared an "enemy", and as usual, such a declaration means it doesn't matter whatever I say.

That is the biggest issue I take with this conversation. From the moment of labeling, Nuclear could give you the strongest proof possible and I still am not sure if it mattered to you.
User avatar
Angelfish
Slylandro gasbags
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Angelfish »

there is no moderation on these forums, you don't have to worry about this getting locked.

MOD: yes there is but I'm trying to not sensor the topic like so many sites do. (that said I do fall behind cause well life, so i miss a few days)
User avatar
Bleeding Star
Ilwrath spawn
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:04 pm
Location: Transiting

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Bleeding Star »

Me wrote:...I don't want to re-open the whole gamersgate hoohah, except in the context that Saria brought it up.
Great job me!
Nuclear wrote:If I were abusing myself to solicit 150 thousand dollars worth of pity donations, in between my bouts of blatant e-begging
So roughly what % of the abuse Anita receives is faked then? Does she have an army of sockpuppets bombarding her with abuse on multiple platforms?
Nuclear wrote:I refrain from actually showcasing my personal opinion as much as possible {since that tends to just piss people off, apparently}; I just let the articles speak for themselves.
The articles read like crazy conspiracy theories – if they are speaking for themselves they’re not doing a great job of it. For the record, I did notice that one of your links is from “Return of Kings”, and while you are under no obligation to listen, they really are a bunch of unreformed misogynists there – it’s a great place to learn how to think of women as objects.
Nuclear wrote:Maybe instead, people are calling me out for a conflict of interest because I fucked the judge panel for an indie gaming competitionI took part in {cheating on my boyfriend in the process} and then, surprisingly enough, won an award despite my game being utter crap. Maybe the h8er's would be getting to me there! I
Do you not think chat logs from an ex (who may indeed have been cheated on) might not be the most reliable evidence? What award did Zoe win? Do you have the link? Why are you not angry at the multiple gaming journalists that she allegedly fucked? Why is it only the woman who bears responsibility for this alleged misconduct?

For the record, I don’t think you’re a misogynist. But you sure visit a lot of websites full of them, and support a cause loaded with unhealthy attitudes towards women.
For the record part 2, and as I said earlier. I think Zoe Quinn is probably an unpleasant person, should that chat log be accurate. I think Anita Sarkeesian is not a very good journalist (though nor are most games journalists, of all political persuasions, as Eth pointed out). And that Kotaku article was stupid and inflammatory. But the outpouring of hate and vitriol and incoherent rage has been totally out of proportion – and furthermore, it’s totally counterproductive.

Finally, as I said earlier (and was ignored by all, as it doesn't contribute to this lovely argument we’re having), the main problem with gaming journalism is the lack of independence of the journalists. Get angry at the game journalists who take money and “perks” in exchange for favorable reviews. Get angry at the companies who bribe the journalists. Get angry every time you read a review and it’s obvious the reviewer hasn't played more than 10 minutes of the game. Once you've brought the whole stinking edifice crashing down, then you can take on the filthy feminists.
User avatar
Lukipela
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 2882
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:03 pm
Location: Dead World

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Lukipela »

Kwayne wrote:At the time of writing my comment I didn't have much time to present my case -- I had to go work -- still I was worried this thread gets locked before I get to express my worries about this exchange of blows. It worked out as it did, not my best piece of comment, however I feel it doesn't deserve Luki's instant dismissal. I'm glad though that chenjesuwizard is more open minded.
I'm glad you feel this way and I agree that my post was, as you say, a close minded and undeserved instant dismissal. That was the point of the excercise. You should have been annoyed by it, as it contributed nothing to the topic except for my opinion.

However, you should consider that it was word for word the same post you wrote, and that we had only that post to go on since you didn't mention that more was to follow or that you were in a hurry. Logically, it follows that you agree that your post was also a close-minded and undeserved instant dismissal. of chenjesuwizard's posting. Extending the reasoning, we should have been annoyed by it, as it contributed nothing to the topic except for your opinion.

Please consider this the next time you make a post like that in a hurry. If you consider my treatment unfair and wouldn't want the same treatment yourself, don't bestow it on others.
chenjesuwizard, the briefest explanation I got for my comment is that it was triggered by you saying Nuclear is a misogynist, however I fail to understand how did he deserve such a title. He didn't so far show any sign of hating, discriminating against or sexually objectifying women. So as long as the definition of misogyny didn't get stretched further than I thought when I wasn't looking, I can only raise an eyebrow and remember how many times I was labeled either a communist or a fascist without my "opponents" having any need to actually know what either communism or fascism is, even though I mostly represent my own interests. In those cases it was clear that I was declared an "enemy", and as usual, such a declaration means it doesn't matter whatever I say.

That is the biggest issue I take with this conversation. From the moment of labeling, Nuclear could give you the strongest proof possible and I still am not sure if it mattered to you.
As far as I can tell, this is the one line out of a long argument that is basically all you've reacted to. Correct me if I've missed any other spots of namecalling from chenjesuwizards side.
It is naive to discuss the nature of disbelief in rape threats without looking at the wider issue of rape culture and how it affects many women. This isn't some isolated case. This is misogynists, like you, saying that none of these women were threatened by rape really, and this behaviour is repeated again and again in each case, which allows those who carry out these rape threats to feel protected. The truth is, these rape threats have to be understood in the wider context of the treatment of women. side.
I assume you have an issue with defining the hand-waving of rape threats as misogynistic? Could you expand this reasoning a bit? I don't completely disagree with you but I think it'd be beneficial if you actually explain a bit more here first.

I would also like to point out that Nuclear has repeatedly called those disagreeing with him an "echo chamber". If you are unfamiliar with the concept, this means that he is labelling us as mindless drones simply agreeing with each other without thinking about the evidence or doing any meaningful thinking on the subject ourselves. Granted, this label can be considered milder. But I would also be interested in why someone like you, who feels strongly about unfair labelling and the way it affects perception of arguments, didn't feel that it was worth to step in and point this labelling out. Any thoughts?
User avatar
Nuclear
Yehat Revolutionist
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:28 am
Location: Citadel Station

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Nuclear »

Uh oh, Nuclear is back. :-X-smf

I can somewhat understand why my sources of information are being discredited. So instead, here are some words of wisdom from a well educated, feminist professor and author whom is much better at substantiating an argument than I am.




chenjesuwizard wrote:The fact that there were many tweets that were misogynistic and threatened violence and rape against her is enough evidence. There were hundreds of different tweets from different people like that.
Yes, and I'm not denying that. However, once again, that seems to be of small consequence when you get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to spout blatantly sexist misinformation and bullshit onto the internet. If a male made a living soapboxing misogyny and false facts, then he would receive death threats too. That's just the way it goes. It's funny because Anita's scripts are written for her by her white, cis-gendered boyfriend Johnathan McInthosh. Anita herself actually admitted at one point that she doesn't even play video games. Go figure.
chenjesuwizard wrote:misogynists, like you
Lol this was inevitable.
chenjesuwizard wrote:It is naive to discuss the nature of disbelief in rape threats without looking at the wider issue of rape culture and how it affects many women.
It is naïve to whip out feminazi buzzwords without first considering their implications {namely, that you yourself are physically and psychologically capable of the act of rape, apparently.}

Also, you are operating under the assumption that Anita Sarkeesian is somehow representative of all woman. Is she? When was she voted in? I sure as hell don't remember. I do know a few women that would take great pleasure in ripping her head off though.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying, through your word usage, that only women are capable of being victimized by sex crime. You seem, at least to me, to be the kind of person that would handwave male victimization as some kind of "strawman", unaware that this kind of insensitive stigmatization is, in itself, a societal problem.

Don't get me wrong, rape is a horrible thing that nobody should ever have to go through. None of this matters at the moment though because this entire discussion about sex crime is completely irrelevant. As Kwayne pointed out, you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument and using a red herring to distract from my original point {that Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are con artists attempting to cash in on a sex panic that they, at least in some way, helped proliferate themselves.} In fact, your only attempt at addressing the meat of my original post was to arbitrarily dismiss my sources and to label me as a misogynist, which is basically on the same level as calling me a Nazi, as far as I'm concerned.

This is unrelated, but let's play a game! How quickly can you distinguish between the societally beneficial humanist, and the radical feminists? My best record is about 6 seconds.

Concepts such as "rape culture" are discussed further in this video. Happy watching.


Bleeding Star wrote:Finally, as I said earlier (and was ignored by all, as it doesn't contribute to this lovely argument we’re having), the main problem with gaming journalism is the lack of independence of the journalists. Get angry at the game journalists who take money and “perks” in exchange for favorable reviews. Get angry at the companies who bribe the journalists. Get angry every time you read a review and it’s obvious the reviewer hasn't played more than 10 minutes of the game. Once you've brought the whole stinking edifice crashing down, then you can take on the filthy feminists.
I'm sorry for ignoring this earlier, my mistake. You have a pretty big point there, definitely a discussion to be had at another time. And thank you for addressing what I said directly. As you can see from this post, I have somewhat revaluated my information sources like you suggested. And yes, the men involved in the various GamerGate related scandals are to be held responsible as well, but they do not represent the basis of my post. It wouldn't make for much of an entertaining discussion, seeing how nobody would try to defend them ;)-smf
Lukipela wrote:I would also like to point out that Nuclear has repeatedly called those disagreeing with him an "echo chamber". If you are unfamiliar with the concept, this means that he is labelling us as mindless drones simply agreeing with each other without thinking about the evidence or doing any meaningful thinking on the subject ourselves. Granted, this label can be considered milder. But I would also be interested in why someone like you, who feels strongly about unfair labelling and the way it affects perception of arguments, didn't feel that it was worth to step in and point this labelling out. Any thoughts?
Forgive me Luki. I am nothing but a wee "Manchild" that really "needs to get a fucking life" :(-smf
Hackers never die. They just terminate and stay resident.
User avatar
Kwayne
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:36 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Contact:

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Kwayne »

Lukipela wrote:I'm glad you feel this way and I agree that my post was, as you say, a close minded and undeserved instant dismissal. That was the point of the excercise. You should have been annoyed by it, as it contributed nothing to the topic except for my opinion.

However, you should consider that it was word for word the same post you wrote, and that we had only that post to go on since you didn't mention that more was to follow or that you were in a hurry. Logically, it follows that you agree that your post was also a close-minded and undeserved instant dismissal. of chenjesuwizard's posting. Extending the reasoning, we should have been annoyed by it, as it contributed nothing to the topic except for your opinion.

Please consider this the next time you make a post like that in a hurry. If you consider my treatment unfair and wouldn't want the same treatment yourself, don't bestow it on others.
It's very common to dismiss anything by saying it's just an opinion. You know, because it's like an asshole. A forum by any means is not a no-go zone for opinions, and I can't understand how they can annoy anybody, since having an opinion simply means someone speaks from their own standpoint. From my standpoint, chenjesuwizard stepped over a line that is perceivable only to me, and I shared that along with the observation that his (along with other anti-GG) points weigh as much as Nuclear's to me, as they hinge on alienating the observers of this discussion from counterpoints though assumptious mislabeling and misleading the conversation to a field that has little to do with GG but emotional appeal has a damage bonus. Questioning Nuclear's empathy was a sign of the latter happening.

Nuclear's evidence is dubious for it being -- admittedly -- sloppily assembled, but in the very least he tries to stay on track, and actually shows more visual cues that fits with my experience with Anita Sarkeesian specifically. Can't say much about Zoe, aside my opinion that so far Depression Quest hardly qualifies as a video game, and as such I wonder how it could have been nominated on IndieCade2013. That doesn't mean I don't need better sources to confirm Nuclear's allegations, and for that reason both GG and anti-GG positions hang almost completely balanced.

I know that by turning my post around you wanted to feed me my own medicine. What feels unfair about it is that it's apparently fueled by the assumptions that I'm aligned with GG and I dismiss chenjesuwizard's points without consideration, which isn't true. I just pointed out that by labeling he shows signs of threading on with a simplified mindset that lumps Nuclear together with the worst people associated with GamerGate, even though the real misogynists or ones with the rape threats and the Anita/Zoe abusers might just used the hashtag once or never. It's not that chenjesuwizard said something I didn't like and therefore he's garbage.
Lukipela wrote:As far as I can tell, this is the one line out of a long argument that is basically all you've reacted to. Correct me if I've missed any other spots of namecalling from chenjesuwizards side.
For me it's not a matter of quantity. It's better to stop at one, take a breath, and think if it really was a correct description of the other's character or just namecalling.
Lukipela wrote:
It is naive to discuss the nature of disbelief in rape threats without looking at the wider issue of rape culture and how it affects many women. This isn't some isolated case. This is misogynists, like you, saying that none of these women were threatened by rape really, and this behaviour is repeated again and again in each case, which allows those who carry out these rape threats to feel protected. The truth is, these rape threats have to be understood in the wider context of the treatment of women. side.
I assume you have an issue with defining the hand-waving of rape threats as misogynistic? Could you expand this reasoning a bit? I don't completely disagree with you but I think it'd be beneficial if you actually explain a bit more here first.
I have no issue with rape threat denial being misogynistic, similarly, I find holocaust denial a typically anti-semitic notion. However being skeptical about specific cases and trying to justify said skepticism through points and examples is not misogynistic hand-waving, and it's definitely not "saying that none of these women were threatened by rape really".
Lukipela wrote:I would also like to point out that Nuclear has repeatedly called those disagreeing with him an "echo chamber". If you are unfamiliar with the concept, this means that he is labelling us as mindless drones simply agreeing with each other without thinking about the evidence or doing any meaningful thinking on the subject ourselves. Granted, this label can be considered milder. But I would also be interested in why someone like you, who feels strongly about unfair labelling and the way it affects perception of arguments, didn't feel that it was worth to step in and point this labelling out. Any thoughts?
Perhaps it's under my radar because it seems to address your perceived attitude regarding this topic, while "misogynist" reads as "bad person" with unsavory views that aren't confined to our topic. "Echo chamber" is not a nice thing to say, though it doesn't read to me like "you're mindless drones" either, that sounds like a defensive over-dramatization of it's meaning. Though this might be the cause of different people having different sensitivities.
Last edited by Kwayne on Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Death 999
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:07 pm

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Death 999 »

Nuclear wrote:Yes, and I'm not denying that. However, once again, that seems to be of small consequence when you get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to spout blatantly sexist misinformation and bullshit onto the internet.
A) citations to Encyclopedia Dramatica should be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Crystalline Entity, or not at all.
B) So far as I can tell, zero girls have done school shootings, so she is factually correct on that point. And in 'toxic masculinity', 'toxic' is a restrictive adjective. So, that's not even particularly bullshit OR misinformation. Running around shooting people is definitely masculine, and doing it without good reason is toxic.

Nuclear wrote:
chenjesuwizard wrote:It is naive to discuss the nature of disbelief in rape threats without looking at the wider issue of rape culture and how it affects many women.
It is naïve to whip out feminazi buzzwords without first considering their implications {namely, that you yourself are physically and psychologically capable of the act of rape, apparently.}
what? I recall a conversation from the summer before last where one of my coworkers came back from a weekend with some indirect friends. He sat down in his chair and said, "I used to think Rape Culture was just this... thing that feminists made up. And then, this weekend happened. Oh. My. God. They were joking about it nonstop. In front of women. And they weren't even good jokes. It was just, Rape! Ha ha ha."

It's not everywhere, but it is somewhere. And on the internet, it's more (see: the greater internet fuckwad theory)
Nuclear wrote:Also, you are operating under the assumption that Anita Sarkeesian is somehow representative of all woman.
I do not see how this is the case.
Nuclear wrote:Forgive me Luki. I am nothing but a wee "Manchild" that really "needs to get a fucking life" :(-smf
He, uh, didn't say that at all.
Post Reply