Yes, the point you were trying to make is that there are those with extreme views in support of GG. There are also anti-GG people who call all GG supporters misogynistic neckbeard virgins.::shrugs:: There are extremists in any controversial issue - this is no different.in that regard. However, the anti-GG side have *journalists* leading these views in that regard - people who should know better. The GG side have people like Totalbiscuit trying to reign in the extremism at least - I have seen very few calls for that on the other side.

There are also trolls who generally don't care about the issues at hand and exist solely to push buttons to get a reaction. They don't care what side they are on as long as they get to piss people off. Then there is what is happening to Emma Watson - brought about by greed and a company that has nothing to do with GG, a company that saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. They are the lowest scum and need to be brought down hard.

"Feminist" is just a convenient way of referring the other side given that they don't refer to themselves as SJWs. Not all feminists are SJWs, obviously, and there's nothing inherently bad about feminism or feminists until it's taken to an extreme. If your point is that lazily using the term without specifying that it's aimed at a narrow, radicalized sect is a bad thing, I don't think anyone could disagree, though the context of negative comments often makes it clear who said comments are specifically aimed at.

Did Emma Watson really come under attack? I haven't heard of anything outside of the nude photo PR thing that seems to have been a shady PR stunt. In fact, I saw a picture with portions of her speech written out, and many of the comments were of the "this is the kind of feminism we should have" variety. Outside of that, all I can find is support. Even Rush friggin' Limbaugh, quite possibly the living embodiment of hatred, didn't attack her.

What occurs to me with this general cover all is surely its the same thing as the 'gamers are dead' articles were doing. The way I read the articles I have seen on the subject, they actually identified who the 'dead gamers' that they were referring to were. In contrast several of the people who have made negative comments about feminists haven't clarified there comments, even within the context of the discussion they were participating in. My concern is feminist and SJW are being thrown around and the way they can be interpreted, who falls under those labels, etc etc, is very subjective. But I do largely agree with what you said.



I suppose it depends on how you define attack. Certainly I've not seen anyone high profile come out and attack her (somewhere on the internet people must be attacking her, but that isn't the point really). Ridiculous PR stunt or not, the use of naked photos to humiliate women does happen (unless I am mistaken such photos of Quinn have done the rounds) so for me at least it highlights the issue. Obviously this is just a single issue largely relating to women (similar to rape threats) and other underhand and utterly reprehensible tactics are used which are not so gender specific (which in the case of this particular wider discussion are being used by all supposed sides).

That's an interesting point, though I'm inclined to believe that the format makes a difference. Some anonymous person on Twitter saying something negative about feminism that could potentially lump in those innocent of zealotry seems a bit different than Leigh Alexander and others putting out hit pieces that draw a line in the sand. We should all try to avoid generalizations as a general rule, but being unclear and throwing good activists under the bus isn't, to me, the same as declaring that everyone who disagrees with you is an "obtuse shitslinger" who's only mad because they can't handle change.

I think the assumption of a specific motive is what makes the second one worse, which would also explain why the Breitbart articles about this whole thing make me feel a little sick to read. They're basically the same thing, only with "feminist" copy-pasted where "gamer" used to be. I suppose intent factors in somewhat, too.

Oh, no question, though it could be argued that this is merely reflective of a societal fixation on the female body over those of males. There are exceptions such as Brett Favre's penis picture that garner similar amounts of attention, but this kind of thing definitely appears to happen more to women. Still, people always try to hit you where it hurts the most when they're mad, and it only makes sense that the privacy of someone in the public eye would be sacrosanct to them. As such, I don't think it belies a particular hatred of women so much as a vicious brand of opportunism on the part of internet bullies who see it as the best avenue to attack that particular gender.

You can NOT use Quinn's photos as evidence to sell that point. Those photos were bought and paid for, and she was compensated for them. They were already publically available, as she used to pose for two sites under the name "Locke." That said, hacking someone's PRIVATE information, which anti-GG has now done to 6 supporters, including a professor that works at Cornell, is abhorrent and the people involved should be fucking ashamed of themselves. They've threatened, doxxed and harassed female GG supporters. Make no mistake. These people do NOT have the moral high ground here.

If that were the case I wouldn't argue, but when its some of the same people using the articles in their arguments who are making the sweeping generalizations that would be where my issue lies.

Paid for or not isn't the issue, people using naked photos as ammunition, a way to discredit someone is. What has naked pictures of Quinn, or any one whose private accounts have been hacked got to do with the debate? The answer is nothing, and yet they are still brought up and used. So yes, I can use Quinn's photos as evidence because they are relevant.

Also I wasn't giving anyone the moral high ground, something you might have noticed if you'd read my original post where I pointed out SOME people on both 'sides' were using wholly unpleasant tactics.

THIS is a woman fighting for EQUALITY, not for "feminazism" , makes me feel still PROUD of her gender, and makes me feel there is still sanity on the world, just for reading her declarations. KUDOS! But pay attention to the "journos" that altered and manipulated her words!

http://trib.al/zFx5F3Q

Some quotes:

These sexist instances happened once or twice and were by no means debilitating. The reason my startup failed was a combination of poor decisions on my behalf and some bad luck and timing. Not sexism.

I’m not a victim, and portraying me as a bitter victim does nothing but make me, and other women, look weak and stupid. I am not weak and stupid. The worst part was that the article was written by a woman. Shame on her.

As a startup founder, I am very pragmatic. It’s a skill I’ve learned over many years of dealing with things not going to plan. Sure, the cards may be stacked against female founders, but I can usually find a way to turn my gender into a positive thing.

Just this afternoon I stumbled on yet another article portraying me as a whiny little girl blaming sexism for my company’s failure. You know what? I’m over it.

I’m not a “woman in tech.” I’m just in tech.

Link no work :P

Right, compare the Factual Feminist or Gloria Steinem with Anita Sarkeesian or Andrea Dwarkin and there's a rather large gulf there. The ones on the left are at least intelligent enough to have opinions worth listening to. The ones on the right are pretty much not worth the time to listen to, they're spoiled and self-centered, using lies to appeal to women that aren't bright enough to understand what's being said.

I haven't seen Emma's comments, so I'm not sure where she'd fall, but there's way, way too much attention given to nutjobs claiming to espouse equality, but instead being rather misanthropic about it.

Sorry, try now http://trib.al/zFx5F3Q

The point I have issue with is that the implication is that they were illegally gotten, not publically available, which is how the narrative has been spun in a dishonest fashion. So, no, it's not evidence, it's intellectually dishonest posturing, considering none of us even wanted to see those pics, believe me. :P

It's just more chaff thrown out to try to continue the harassment spin, and a false narrative that anyone even remotely cares what she does or doesn't do. That's the main gist.

That's disgusting. The entire beginning of the article paints an extremely grim picture...
Incidentally - realizing how much this upsets me, in turn reminded me that I am not the sexist bastard anti-GG people would love to paint me as.

I never said they were illegally obtained, merely pointing out they were sort after as a result of the events surrounding her. And clearly someone wanted to see them otherwise they would never have come to light. I only used her as a relevant example of the point I was making, considering how some people feel about her I would have avoided using her at all preferring an example of a gamergate lady instead if one had come to mind. So believe me, I am not trying to make it about her and if she is being harassed or not.

As you seem to disagree with what I am saying though, perhaps you could tell me why exactly they did come to light?

I have never advocated censorship and I consider your insinuation a hateful and inappropriate way to derail the conversation. You have obviously no idea what censorship even is.

I have argued and will continue to argue that if Anita Sarkeesian began to give game designers "a few tips" as to how they could make their games "better", it would be construed as a ready made, obstructive recipe as part of her alleged agenda to take video games away from video gamers.

I have argued and will continue to argue that it's neither her place nor her talent to creatively engage in writing stories, characters or mechanics for video games, and that she MUST NOT do it because it would undermine her credibility.

I have argued and will continue to argue that this CAN NOT be the sense of her series, which is a feminist critique of a piece of art. If a critique of any other medium, namely literature and movies, incorporated these kinds of alternate "visions" of the product, people would fucking laugh at the critique (inb4 oh so funny guy says "I do that anyway").

As things stand right now, gamergate is the movement that would mistake secondary literature as an agenda to abandon literature. Everything that really deserves their attention happens right under their nose, but they don't give a shit.

Valve recently conflated themselves, gamers and press with their 'curator' program. Yup, the press now literally goes to the almighty publisher and begs him to divert the gamers' attention to them, which the publisher readily does. Where the fuck is gamergate here? Where are the protests, the denial of service attacks, the incessant whining, the shitty youtube comments, the 4chan documentary Kickstarters about gamer abuse?

are you saying sarkeesian has some agenda to take videogames away from their historical audience? or are you saying that that is incorrectly what people would assume?

it's not your place to decide whether she has any kind of developmental role in videogames in any fashion. saying anything to the contrary is just bigoted. and I understand you didn't assert that it was your place to decide or command this. but to "argue that it isn't her place" to participate in videogame creation in some fashion is, in my opinion, discriminatory and also a very dangerous argument to make in this whole conversation (you may be right that it's not her talent. you may not be. it is however quite irrelevant.). also, it's a pretty ironic argument if it's made by someone supposedly neutral and who is taking a reasonable stance. and it doesn't undermine her credibility in any way. if she critiques videogames, then, if she made one herself, she critiques all other videogames except that one.