An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[Schadrach]

Wait...why is it "sjw woman" and not just "sjw"?

Simple. Because A GIRL agrees with us.

This has been pretty SOP for a while now.

More because it pre-resolves the first counter argument that doesn't actually address what's said, that being "you are a cishet white male, and thus are wrong." Usually the follow up is "you are lying about being a woman." That's actually the reason that GWW and Typhonblue started using their real names online and started doing YouTube videos instead of just blog posts.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I think the entire SJW label is taking crap way too far. It's pointless. If you're sick of people making arguments about things that they believe in then get off the goddamn forums. Everyone needs to just calm the fuck down.

hey, these people can talk about diversity the entire day, i dont mind, as long as they dont insult, shame or harass devs and gamers

if they can keep their agendas out of gaming, i personally wont have a problem with them, and if they want more inclusive games, just make em, noone is stopping them

Yet insulting, harassing, and shaming devs is what "anti-SJWs" do all the time.

oh really? go to 8chan and try to organize a raid or a harassment attack towards SJW, prepare to ridiculed and mocked

i dare you do it, 8chan is an anonymous board, it takes nothing to post there, do it and show us the results

on the other hand, the people from gamergate have been compared to ISIS, repeatedly, people from GG have been doxxed and hacked, the escapist itself was DOSS'd by people who allegedly oppose GG

there are assholes on both sides, but the people with the megaphone should be more responsible than the lowly forum poster, they are communicators

that being said, if legitimate, i do oppose any harassment directed at SJWs, because you cant win a debate acting like that

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

That impressed you?

Fucking hell man..

Never, ever, ever talk about unbaised reporting or "narratives" ever again, because obviously you only have a problem with narratives when they don't serve your interests, and that's completely fine. Go ahead, use narratives however you want. You can have stupid opinions. You can use bad mythpoetic content analysis to try and justify your desire to play games one handed. You can even interpret questionable archaeological evidence to fit whatever story you want. If you think that's a really important thing to help you understand or appreciate a product, then go ahead.

But stop trying to prevent other people from doing the same because they happen to disagree with you. That is censorship.

so debate is now censorship?

who wouldve thought theres more than 1 way top look at well endowed women? no its always misogyny, its always nerds trying to fap to them

how about you stop and listen to the argument of the other side for a while

theres a BIG difference between saying "you know, this character design can be interpreted in different ways" and "gamers are DEAD"

also i hope you condemn the actual censorship other gaming sites have around gamergate

That's true.

He's also a hypocrite who argued that gay people shouldn't be able to get married or be equal in law (winning Stonewall's "homophobe of the year" award by doing so, against some very stiff competition) then got quietly engaged to his partner when people with more vision than himself won that argument.

I have great respect for those people who attempt to reconcile their faith and sexuality, doing so is often one of the bravest things a person can do. What I don't respect is people who cynically pander to bigotry in hopes of sparing themselves its worst excesses.

oh, so that makes him less gay?

does defending gamer gate make Christina H. Sommers less of a woman?

does owning 8chan make Fredrick Brennan less handicapped?

does not caring about the race of characters in video games make me less latino?

or is diversity only valid when this diverse people share the same opinions as you

 

[Terminal Blue]

so debate is now censorship?

No, I don't think it is, I'm just fucking with you.

Debate is not censorship. Criticizing a game is not censoring a game. Criticizing a review is not censoring a review. We are lucky enough to live in a world of free and open criticism and free and open response to criticism. That's not a world I want to get rid of, if anything I think we should expand the capacity for criticism..

theres a BIG difference between saying "you know, this character design can be interpreted in different ways" and "gamers are DEAD"

Umm.. No there isn't.

Gamers aren't literally dead. Kotaku haven't deployed some subliminal psychic triggers into Steam's code which makes people's heads explode when they load up a game. "Gamers are dead" is a convenient click bait headline for a bunch of articles about diversity in gaming, which is an interpretive issue, one which is subject to opinion, and opinion is free.

also i hope you condemn the actual censorship other gaming sites have around gamergate

Depends if it's actually censorship or not.

People have the wrong idea about free speech sometimes, they assume that having [free speech means being entitled to a platform. Being denied a platform, having your TV show taken off the air, having your article pulled or even losing your job in journalism is not necessarily "censorship" because these are not part of the right to free expression. I can't march up to a television company and demand to have my own show, because they won't give me one. To use your favourite train of logic, that's the business, and if you don't like it you can go and set up your own media company.

Journalists being fired or blacklisted for expressing their opinions is a grey area. On one hand, unless they're actually in breach of a preexisting policy it does seem arbitrary and unnecessary. On the other hand, your employer generally has the right to take disciplinary measures when you do something embarrasses them or reflects badly on them, because they're giving you money not to do that. I don't see enormous evidence of some great conspiracy in these things, what I see is a bunch of media companies trying to control their image. That's not really abnormal or suspicious, although the fact that it appears as such probably means they aren't doing a good job.

So which is it. Do you think gamergate is being censored, or do you think gamergate is simply being denied a platform?

oh, so that makes him less gay?

No. But what does that even mean?

Is this the online equivalent of "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend!"

Gay people are perfectly capable of pandering to homophobes, because sometimes, shockingly, it's advantageous to do so. Gay people are also capable of being utter hypocrites who make a career out of reassuring their homophobic chums that gay people don't really want to get married so it's okay to think that they shouldn't, and then secretly getting married..

Kind of like women are capable of calling themselves feminists despite having absolutely zero feminist literacy so that the conservative family-values lobby with whom they're affiliated can claim that they're not anti-feminist.

If those gay people are your "gay friends", if those feminists are your "moderate feminists", it's not particularly solid evidence of anything.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

so debate is now censorship?

No, I don't think it is, I'm just fucking with you.

Debate is not censorship. Criticizing a game is not censoring a game. Criticizing a review is not censoring a review. We are lucky enough to live in a world of free and open criticism and free and open response to criticism. That's not a world I want to get rid of, if anything I think we should expand the capacity for criticism..

theres is such thing as non-useful criticism, and accusing a game of "misogyny" because of the character designs is such thing, because it simply does not diminishes the quality of the game, as a game

a deck of poker with sexy pictures of ladies is STILL a perfectly functional deck of poker

dualshockers jsut publsihed an article about this, is a decent read

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/10/14/bayonetta-2s-over-sexualization-complaint-a-perfect-example-of-whats-wrong-with-modern-reviews/

theres a BIG difference between saying "you know, this character design can be interpreted in different ways" and "gamers are DEAD"

Umm.. No there isn't.

Gamers aren't literally dead. Kotaku haven't deployed some subliminal psychic triggers into Steam's code which makes people's heads explode when they load up a game. "Gamers are dead" is a convenient click bait headline for a bunch of articles about diversity in gaming, which is an interpretive issue, one which is subject to opinion, and opinion is free.

slander is the exact same thing as one defending a piece of work

are, you, serious?

hell you are defending clickbait as well, i dont think you care much about the quality of the content gaming sites publish

also i hope you condemn the actual censorship other gaming sites have around gamergate

Depends if it's actually censorship or not.

People have the wrong idea about free speech sometimes, they assume that having [free speech means being entitled to a platform. Being denied a platform, having your TV show taken off the air, having your article pulled or even losing your job in journalism is not necessarily "censorship" because these are not part of the right to free expression. I can't march up to a television company and demand to have my own show, because they won't give me one. To use your favourite train of logic, that's the business, and if you don't like it you can go and set up your own media company.

Journalists being fired or blacklisted for expressing their opinions is a grey area. On one hand, unless they're actually in breach of a preexisting policy it does seem arbitrary and unnecessary. On the other hand, your employer generally has the right to take disciplinary measures when you do something embarrasses them or reflects badly on them, because they're giving you money not to do that. I don't see enormous evidence of some great conspiracy in these things, what I see is a bunch of media companies trying to control their image. That's not really abnormal or suspicious, although the fact that it appears as such probably means they aren't doing a good job.

So which is it. Do you think gamergate is being censored, or do you think gamergate is simply being denied a platform?

so harassing devs, calling internet providers to shut down sites, doxxing, hacking, blacklisting, are all not censorship?

i think we need to check that definition again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

how is this campaign to refuse to cover gamergate, banning for discussing gamergate, doxxing, hacking and using influences to shut down discussions of gamergate not censorship? it is clear gaming websites dont want to address or recognize this information, it is the definition of censorship, or are you going to say a movement questioning the integritic of gaming journalist is not harmful to corrupt game journalists?

just because "is in the rules" doesnt mean its not censorship

oh, so that makes him less gay?

No. But what does that even mean?

Is this the online equivalent of "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend!"

Gay people are perfectly capable of pandering to homophobes, because sometimes, shockingly, it's advantageous to do so. Gay people are also capable of being utter hypocrites who make a career out of reassuring their homophobic chums that gay people don't really want to get married so it's okay to think that they shouldn't, and then secretly getting married..

Kind of like women are capable of calling themselves feminists despite having absolutely zero feminist literacy so that the conservative family-values lobby with whom they're affiliated can claim that they're not anti-feminist.

If those gay people are your "gay friends", if those feminists are your "moderate feminists", it's not particularly solid evidence of anything.

so women, gays and hadicapped in the gamergate movement, are not evidence of women, gays and hadicapped in the gamergate movement?

are you really going to argue gamergate is "a bunch of white straight males" like so many others have, when the evidence is right there in front of you, in the form of diverse speakers for the movement, in the form of smaller movements supporting gamergate, such as #notyourshield

at this point to argue gamergate is nothing but a bunch of white straight males, is racist, sexist and... i dont know, heterophobic? the evidence is overwhelming and it simply cannot be denied, it has been one of the biggest hits to the anti-gamergate movement, because it completely destroys their narrative, they have become the great defenders of minorities... that are attacking minorities

 

[Terminal Blue]

theres is such thing as non-useful criticism, and accusing a game of "misogyny" because of the character designs is such thing, because it simply does not diminishes the quality of the game, as a game

Right, so basically, you and a small minority of angry internet activists get to decide for the entire world what constitutes "useful" and "non-useful" criticism irrespective of whether it actually is useful to anyone else or not.

Isn't that exactly what you accuse the "other side" of doing?

dualshockers jsut publsihed an article about this, is a decent read

That's not "balanced reporting", that's hollow narrative which you happen to agree with.

It's not a decent read, either. It's tedious, emotionally charged polemics designed to pander to the fragile egos of fans. But of course, you've decided it's "useful", so yay I guess! All hail the future of garme jurnalizm. I look forward to my approved diet of intellectually cowardly, self-congratulatory bullshit specially approved for us all by you and your chums.

But hey, thanks for saving us all from those nasty SJWs.

slander is the exact same thing as one defending a piece of work

Slander requires that a person is being denigrated. "Gamers" isn't a person. Slander also requires that the allegation being made is demonstrably untrue.

You might be looking for the word "hatespeech", but even then I don't think anything in those articles remotely meets the criteria of hatespeech even in the broadest (i.e. not actually enforcable in law anywhere in the world) sense of the term.

hell you are defending clickbait as well, i dont think you care much about the quality of the content gaming sites publish

No. I clearly don't, at least not in the sense that you do.

Eye catching headlines have been a part of journalism for a long time. Clickbait is simply the more sophisticated online iteration of that. It doesn't really need defending, it's just how journalism works and in that sense it's nothing new.

I think relying on clickbaiting to compensate for a lack of quality content is unlikely to be a successful long term strategy. Such an approach seems to me to be based on a probable over-valuation of site traffic as a metric of success, rather than an integrated approach which positions site traffic in the context of things like engagement rate.

But clickbait certainly has its place, particularly when we're talking about entertainment media which is, at the end of the day, what all gaming media is.

or are you going to say a movement questioning the integritic of gaming journalist is not harmful to corrupt game journalists?

Well, you seem to very much only be questioning the integrity of some game journalists. So I wouldn't go that far.

The problem with the wikipedia definition of censorship, by the way, is that form of censorship it describes is not necessarily in any way illegal or even considered remotely immoral. It is part of everyday, normal interaction. I am censoring at this moment, because it's something we all do out of consideration for rules of social decorum or to cater to other people or as a price for preserving our access to a platform. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume when you talk about censorship of gamergate you're implying there is censorship which in some way violates a person's legal or moral (however you contextualize moral) right to expression, and that's what I'm not sure about.

just because "is in the rules" doesnt mean its not censorship

Just because it's censorship doesn't mean it's bad.

Generally, "the rules" are what we rely on to tell us when censorship is bad.

so women, gays and hadicapped in the gamergate movement, are not evidence of women, gays and hadicapped in the gamergate movement?

If that's all you care about, then yeah, I guess so.

I just don't see how that's a particularly great moral victory.

And I find the implicit claim that it is to be a bit patronizing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wait...why is it "sjw woman" and not just "sjw"?

Simple. Because A GIRL agrees with us.

This has been pretty SOP for a while now.

More because it pre-resolves the first counter argument that doesn't actually address what's said, that being "you are a cishet white male, and thus are wrong." Usually the follow up is "you are lying about being a woman." That's actually the reason that GWW and Typhonblue started using their real names online and started doing YouTube videos instead of just blog posts.

That's preemptively knocking down a strawman.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

theres is such thing as non-useful criticism, and accusing a game of "misogyny" because of the character designs is such thing, because it simply does not diminishes the quality of the game, as a game

Right, so basically, you and a small minority of angry internet activists get to decide for the entire world what constitutes "useful" and "non-useful" criticism irrespective of whether it actually is useful to anyone else or not.

Isn't that exactly what you accuse the "other side" of doing?

ill use another example because you dotn seem to understand

if i have a chess set in which all the pieces are sexy women, does that make chess a worse game? does that make that set worse at chess than other sets? would the same apply if the pieces were instead sexy men?

we critize the other size of shaming and harassing devs for their artistic decisions, of corruption, of trying to bring politics into gaming, of ignoring minorities who are not offended by the current state of gaming

dualshockers jsut publsihed an article about this, is a decent read

That's not "balanced reporting", that's hollow narrative which you happen to agree with.

It's not a decent read, either. It's tedious, emotionally charged polemics designed to pander to the fragile egos of fans. But of course, you've decided it's "useful", so yay I guess! All hail the future of garme jurnalizm. I look forward to my approved diet of intellectually cowardly, self-congratulatory bullshit specially approved for us all by you and your chums.

But hey, thanks for saving us all from those nasty SJWs.

why are you here then? this nasty site that met gamergate demands, if you only want to hear YOUR side of the story, just go to all the other sides that refuse to let the gamergate side be heard

slander is the exact same thing as one defending a piece of work

Slander requires that a person is being denigrated. "Gamers" isn't a person. Slander also requires that the allegation being made is demonstrably untrue.

You might be looking for the word "hatespeech", but even then I don't think anything in those articles remotely meets the criteria of hatespeech even in the broadest (i.e. not actually enforcable in law anywhere in the world) sense of the term.

noun
1.
defamation; calumny:
rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
a slander against his good name.
3.
Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

hell you are defending clickbait as well, i dont think you care much about the quality of the content gaming sites publish

No. I clearly don't, at least not in the sense that you do.

Eye catching headlines have been a part of journalism for a long time. Clickbait is simply the more sophisticated online iteration of that. It doesn't really need defending, it's just how journalism works and in that sense it's nothing new.

I think relying on clickbaiting to compensate for a lack of quality content is unlikely to be a successful long term strategy. Such an approach seems to me to be based on a probable over-valuation of site traffic as a metric of success, rather than an integrated approach which positions site traffic in the context of things like engagement rate.

But clickbait certainly has its place, particularly when we're talking about entertainment media which is, at the end of the day, what all gaming media is.

so just because it always has been like that, it has to be like that? i think not

or are you going to say a movement questioning the integritic of gaming journalist is not harmful to corrupt game journalists?

Well, you seem to very much only be questioning the integrity of some game journalists. So I wouldn't go that far.

The problem with the wikipedia definition of censorship, by the way, is that form of censorship it describes is not necessarily in any way illegal or even considered remotely immoral. It is part of everyday, normal interaction. I am censoring at this moment, because it's something we all do out of consideration for rules of social decorum or to cater to other people or as a price for preserving our access to a platform. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume when you talk about censorship of gamergate you're implying there is censorship which in some way violates a person's legal or moral (however you contextualize moral) right to expression, and that's what I'm not sure about.

im sorry are you saying that doxxing, hacking and using your influences to blacklist people is "part of everyday, normal interaction"?

just because "is in the rules" doesnt mean its not censorship

Just because it's censorship doesn't mean it's bad.

Generally, "the rules" are what we rely on to tell us when censorship is bad.

and you expect to have a proper discussion when an entire side is being completely ignored, clearly the espacist is not a good site for you, here both sides are allowed to be heard and discuss

so women, gays and hadicapped in the gamergate movement, are not evidence of women, gays and hadicapped in the gamergate movement?

If that's all you care about, then yeah, I guess so.

I just don't see how that's a particularly great moral victory.

And I find the implicit claim that it is to be a bit patronizing.

when we are accused left and right of being white straight males (as if that was a bad thing somehow), the ability to irrefutably prove them wrong is a great victory, is the one things that has been hurting anti-gg the most, they have no power to shame us based on our race, gender or sexual orientation

i for one dont find it patronizing, and as a non-white im proud to be part of this movement

 

[Terminal Blue]

if i have a chess set in which all the pieces are sexy women, does that make chess a worse game? does that make that set worse at chess than other sets? would the same apply if the pieces were instead sexy men?

Not intrinsically, but it could do.

I mean, I would consider that chess set to be pandering, tacky, and adding nothing to the actual game, and thus I think it would be quite important for me to know if I was in the market for buying a chess set whether I was going to be embarrassed trying to play with it.

And define "sexy men", because that's actually quite a difficult concept to pin down. If we're talking Chippendales, then yes, for much the same reason.

why are you here then? this nasty site that met gamergate demands, if you only want to hear YOUR side of the story, just go to all the other sides that refuse to let the gamergate side be heard

I don't really care if this site gives you a platform or not. That's their right, just as it's the right of other sites to take away said platform. If you don't like it, set up your own forum, blog or news site.

You can say whatever you want, and if anyone is willing to listen to you that's their stupid fault. My only investment here is pointing out that you're being a massive hypocrite and trying to force other people's media consumption to conform to your minority political agenda.

noun
1.
defamation; calumny:
rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
a slander against his good name.
3.
Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

Defamation
noun
1.
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another [person], as by slander or libel; calumny:
She sued the magazine for defamation of character.

so just because it always has been like that, it has to be like that? i think not

I could say exactly the same thing about the game industry.

im sorry are you saying that doxxing, hacking and using your influences to blacklist people is "part of everyday, normal interaction"?

Of those three things, only one is even arguably related to "censorship", and it's legal.

and you expect to have a proper discussion when an entire side is being completely ignored

Well, why don't you set up your own site and discuss it there?

I mean, if game developers don't have to respond to discussions about sexism, why do journalists have to respond to whatever issues you want to discuss? If you think you can provide a better service, maybe you should go and do that.

when we are accused left and right of being white straight males (as if that was a bad thing somehow), the ability to irrefutably prove them wrong is a great victory, is the one things that has been hurting anti-gg the most, they have no power to shame us based on our race, gender or sexual orientation

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that two of the people you've mentioned have a particular history of pandering or setting themselves up as "native informants" to groups with right-wing, conservative Christian and/or anti-equality agendas.

Having those people on side isn't a great achievement, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate any particular progressive credentials.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

if i have a chess set in which all the pieces are sexy women, does that make chess a worse game? does that make that set worse at chess than other sets? would the same apply if the pieces were instead sexy men?

Not intrinsically, but it could do.

I mean, I would consider that chess set to be pandering, tacky, and adding nothing to the actual game, and thus I think it would be quite important for me to know if I was in the market for buying a chess set whether I was going to be embarrassed trying to play with it.

that doesnt make it a worse set of chess, you can still play chess with it perfectly well, if it was a bad set of chess you couldnt do that, atleast not easily

see how your argument falls apart?

And define "sexy men", because that's actually quite a difficult concept to pin down. If we're talking Chippendales, then yes, for much the same reason.

https://www.google.co.ve/search?q=sexy+men&biw=1440&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=x7dBVPWLA8-1sQTwgYLoBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

i wonder, why didnt you question me talking about "sexy women"?

why are you here then? this nasty site that met gamergate demands, if you only want to hear YOUR side of the story, just go to all the other sides that refuse to let the gamergate side be heard

I don't really care if this site gives you a platform or not. That's their right, just as it's the right of other sites to take away said platform. If you don't like it, set up your own forum, blog or news site.

sure i will, if you first stop complaining about "sexism" in games and make your own games without any sexism

You can say whatever you want, and if anyone is willing to listen to you that's their stupid fault. My only investment here is pointing out that you're being a massive hypocrite and trying to force other people's media consumption to conform to your minority political agenda.

so again, just to be clear, you are saying using your influences to take down a gamign site supporting gamergate is not censorship, neither is hacking, doxxing and DDoSing sites that support gamergate or the discussion of gamergate

noun
1.
defamation; calumny:
rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
a slander against his good name.
3.
Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

Defamation
noun
1.
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another [person], as by slander or libel; calumny:
She sued the magazine for defamation of character.

Calumny

noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:
The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.


sexy queen to sexy rook, checkmate

unless you are going to argue gamergate isnt something

so just because it always has been like that, it has to be like that? i think not

I could say exactly the same thing about the game industry.

yeah because sexy ladies do so much harm, if someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are not sexy, you would have a point

im sorry are you saying that doxxing, hacking and using your influences to blacklist people is "part of everyday, normal interaction"?

Of those three things, only one is even arguably related to "censorship", and it's legal.

"censorship is good as long as its legal"

also i love how you imply harassing and threating people for their opinions cant lead to censorship

and you expect to have a proper discussion when an entire side is being completely ignored

Well, why don't you set up your own site and discuss it there?

i dont know, why dont you make your own games and stop complaining about what everyone else plays

also 8chan

I mean, if game developers don't have to respond to discussions about sexism, why do journalists have to respond to whatever issues you want to discuss? If you think you can provide a better service, maybe you should go and do that.

writers shouldnt listen to their readership, of course, well its THEIR choice, these people are alreayd losing hits and advertisers, they definitively wont last at this rate, but you are right, they dont have to listen to us

when we are accused left and right of being white straight males (as if that was a bad thing somehow), the ability to irrefutably prove them wrong is a great victory, is the one things that has been hurting anti-gg the most, they have no power to shame us based on our race, gender or sexual orientation

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that two of the people you've mentioned have a particular history of pandering or setting themselves up as "native informants" to groups with right-wing, conservative Christian and/or anti-equality agendas.

Having those people on side isn't a great achievement, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate any particular progressive credentials.

im christian, is there a problem with that? i have never judged anybody based on their race or their gender or the fact they are gay/bi

and who CARES if they are from the right, again, is diversity only valid if those people AGREE with you? you call that progressive?

hell i live in a "socialist" country, you cant get any more leftist than that, and let me tell you, this is one of the most ass backwards governments this country has ever had, they have destroyed our economy, our infrastructure, our liberties, our security and the unity of our people, progressive my butt

 

[Guerilla]

This article reminded me of an AMAZING 4chan post I found a couple of years ago from a former SJW on how the whole movement resembles a cult and it becomes toxic for you and the people you love. The interesting part begins from the second paragraph:

or link: http://i.imgur.com/hT9HBKi.jpg

 

[Terminal Blue]

that doesnt make it a worse set of chess, you can still play chess with it perfectly well, if it was a bad set of chess you couldnt do that, atleast not easily

It is a bad chess set for me, because I would not want to play with it.

That is what determines the quality of a game, not some arbitrary random measure of whether it's possible to successfully press buttons or move pieces around, but how fun it is to play. There are many, many criteria on which a game can be fun (or not fun) to play, which is why free and open criticism is important.

ET for the Atari 2600 is not a good game because you can press buttons to make ET move around.

i wonder, why didnt you question me talking about "sexy women"?

Oh.. you meant "underwear model" sexy. Why didn't you just say?

The reason I didn't question "sexy women" is because it's already obvious what you mean.

sure i will, if you first stop complaining about "sexism" in games and make your own games without any sexism

Nope. I'm not the one accusing anyone of censorship because they didn't give me a platform I'm not automatically entitled to have. I mean, you're certainly trying to take away people's platforms to talk about sexism, but you haven't actually managed to do anything so even that doesn't bother me really.

So again, just to be clear, you are saying using your influences to take down a gamign site supporting gamergate is not censorship, neither is hacking, doxxing and DDoSing sites that support gamergate or the discussion of gamergate.

Well, as we've established, it depends on your definition of censorship.

The question you're actually implying here is "is it wrong". Hackng and DDoSing is illegal, and doxxing is potentially illegal depending on context so I don't think there's actually much debate there. Website takedowns are generally legal and may in some cases be legally enforced.

But I don't think any of these things are denials of a person's right to free expression as it exists in law, and therefore I don't think the claim of censorship holds much weight, even if you hold a "subjective" definition of censorship which is broader.

Calumny

noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:
The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.

sexy queen to sexy rook, checkmate

unless you are going to argue gamergate isnt something

Have you already forgotten what we were talking about, because that does not bode well.

"Gamers" are not a thing.

You also haven't even touched on the "false and malicious" bit.

yeah because sexy ladies do so much harm, if someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are not sexy, you would have a point

If someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are sexy, you would have a point.

"censorship is good as long as its legal"

You haven't made any kind of case otherwise.

i dont know, why dont you make your own games and stop complaining about what everyone else plays

Actually, I didn't.

I haven't done so once. But you've assumed that I have.

What am I to take from this? Because what I'm inclined to take is that your victim complex will literally invent attacks where there haven't been any simply to fill in the gaps in your little self-serving narrative that anyone who is remotely skeptical that you have the best interests of game journalism at heart is an evil SJW coming to take your games away.

When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you.

writers shouldnt listen to their readership, of course, well its THEIR choice, these people are alreayd losing hits and advertisers, they definitively wont last at this rate, but you are right, they dont have to listen to us

Cool, so you're ready to drop all this silliness about "censorship?"

im christian, is there a problem with that? i have never judged anybody based on their race or their gender or the fact they are gay/bi

Good for you.

It would be nice if the people you hold up to prove how progressive and egalitarian you are could bring themselves do the same.

and who CARES if they are from the right, again, is diversity only valid if those people AGREE with you? you call that progressive?

That depends. Is criticism only justified if people agree with you?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

It is a bad chess set for me, because I would not want to play with it.

i see the problem

opinion != fact

thats YOUR opinion, YOUR feelings mate, not a fact, if i say "i dont like gravity" we dont simply start floating, saying "i dont like this chess set" doesnt make it a worse chess set

That is what determines the quality of a game, not some arbitrary random measure of whether it's possible to successfully press buttons or move pieces around, but how fun it is to play. There are many, many criteria on which a game can be fun (or not fun) to play, which is why free and open criticism is important.

ET for the Atari 2600 is not a good game because you can press buttons to make ET move around.

ok let me continue with the chess analogy

are the rules of chess changed because the pieces are sexy? are the strategies more limited?

i wonder, why didnt you question me talking about "sexy women"?

Oh.. you meant "underwear model" sexy. Why didn't you just say?

The reason I didn't question "sexy women" is because it's already obvious what you mean.

and it wasnt obvious what i mean by sexy men?

you know when you are going to even ignore google search results for "sexy men" maybe you should stop arguing

sure i will, if you first stop complaining about "sexism" in games and make your own games without any sexism

Nope. I'm not the one accusing anyone of censorship because they didn't give me a platform I'm not automatically entitled to have. I mean, you're certainly trying to take away people's platforms to talk about sexism, but you haven't actually managed to do anything so even that doesn't bother me really.

so the good old

"its different when I do it" defense?

you are not automatically entitled to your games not being sexist, in fact developers are free to protray whatever they want in their games, fi yuo dont like it, make yor own games

im not taking anybody's platform to talk about anything, im only asking for both points to be heard, if you think my arguments stop people from talking about sexism in games, if you think your argument of sexism in games cant stand even the slighhtest level of scrutiny, maybe its not a good argument

So again, just to be clear, you are saying using your influences to take down a gamign site supporting gamergate is not censorship, neither is hacking, doxxing and DDoSing sites that support gamergate or the discussion of gamergate.

Well, as we've established, it depends on your definition of censorship.

The question you're actually implying here is "is it wrong". Hackng and DDoSing is illegal, and doxxing is potentially illegal depending on context so I don't think there's actually much debate there. Website takedowns are generally legal and may in some cases be legally enforced.

But I don't think any of these things are denials of a person's right to free expression as it exists in law, and therefore I don't think the claim of censorship holds much weight, even if you hold a "subjective" definition of censorship which is broader.

you mean THE definition of censorship, which, again, is defined as follows

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

you know it kind of reminds of what happened in my country a few years back

one of the mayor, anti-government TV channels was denied its permission to keep broadcasting, it wasnt anything illegal, the state is entitled to give these permissions or not, technically what they did wasnt illegal, but regardless, the end result was censorship, we lost part of our ability to hear opposing points of view, all the other TV channels opposing the government changed their stance out of fear of having their permissions revoked

and last year, the last remaining mayor anti-government TV channel (which was a cable television network and therefore couldnt have its permission revoked by the government) had most of its assets bought by the government after years of harassment campaigns, we have now lost all spaces for dissenting opinions on TV, most people here have no internet, so they cant hear opposing opinions from there either, and thanks to a shortage of paper (among countless other things) newspapers are also on the verge of extintion

nothing illegal, but are you going to argue none of this is censorship?

Calumny

noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:
The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.

sexy queen to sexy rook, checkmate

unless you are going to argue gamergate isnt something

Have you already forgotten what we were talking about, because that does not bode well.

"Gamers" are not a thing.

You also haven't even touched on the "false and malicious" bit.

"gamers is not a thing" haha ok

gamers is an identity and therefore a thing

yeah because sexy ladies do so much harm, if someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are not sexy, you would have a point

If someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are sexy, you would have a point.

i have a point then

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

"censorship is good as long as its legal"

You haven't made any kind of case otherwise.

i just did

i dont know, why dont you make your own games and stop complaining about what everyone else plays

Actually, I didn't.

I haven't done so once. But you've assumed that I have.

What am I to take from this? Because what I'm inclined to take is that your victim complex will literally invent attacks where there haven't been any simply to fill in the gaps in your little self-serving narrative that anyone who is remotely skeptical that you have the best interests of game journalism at heart is an evil SJW coming to take your games away.

When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you.

you just defended numerous times scoring a game lower because it has sexy women

writers shouldnt listen to their readership, of course, well its THEIR choice, these people are alreayd losing hits and advertisers, they definitively wont last at this rate, but you are right, they dont have to listen to us

Cool, so you're ready to drop all this silliness about "censorship?"

oh so now you are arguing that readers should keep reading and supporting sites that we dont like just becuase that is the only kind of censorship you will attack?

sorry but pal, this is capitalism, if your customers dont want it, they wont buy it, if you are a writer, insulting your readers, the people that CONSUME your content wont get you far

im christian, is there a problem with that? i have never judged anybody based on their race or their gender or the fact they are gay/bi

Good for you.

It would be nice if the people you hold up to prove how progressive and egalitarian you are could bring themselves do the same.

oh so having people of all races, religions, from the left and from the right, genders and sexuality doesnt count?

and who CARES if they are from the right, again, is diversity only valid if those people AGREE with you? you call that progressive?

That depends. Is criticism only justified if people agree with you?

no, criticism is only valid when it makes sense, being from the right doesnt turn you into a blabbering idiot

being from the left or the right doesnt make you are more or less gay, woman, non-white, therefore attacking the diversity of this movement based on the political view of SOME people inside of it is ridiculous and actually quite intolerant

 

[Terminal Blue]

thats YOUR opinion, YOUR feelings mate, not a fact, if i say "i dont like gravity" we dont simply start floating, saying "i dont like this chess set" doesnt make it a worse chess set

This assumes that the purpose of the chess set is something other than to be enjoyed.

are the rules of chess changed because the pieces are sexy? are the strategies more limited?

Why does that even matter?

Maybe you think that's the only thing that's important, but that is YOUR opinion. The entire value of a chess set is entirely subjective because it is based on the ability to provoke a subjective experience, that of having fun or being entertained. If you think it isn't, if you think that the criteria upon which you value things are more factual than that of everyone else, then I am absolutely shocked you have the balls to try and lecture anyone about fact and opinion because you clearly understand neither.

you know when you are going to even ignore google search results for "sexy men" maybe you should stop arguing

Why?

Heck, do a web search and browse through some aggregators and surveys, you'll already get very different results.

What you're doing now is choosing the terms in which you get to validate your opinion as "fact" and then proclaiming it to be fact, which once again shows zero understanding of how opinion works.

you are not automatically entitled to your games not being sexist

True. But I am entitled to argue that they shouldn't be, contingent on the people whose platform I'm using don't object to me doing so.

There is absolutely no difference between you wanting to "change" reviews and me wanting to "change" games. Absolutely no difference. The difference between us is that I don't seem to be labouring under the delusion that adhering to my opinion somehow constitutes good practice or a requirement of professionalism.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

If that's the definition of censorship, then bring a suit to bear. Even if you can't, you'd think some GG Americans would have invoked the first amendment. Or some Europeans might have called in the ECHR.

Oh wait, they can't, because this isn't covered by any legally enforceable guarantee of free speech.

gamers is an identity and therefore a thing

"Muslim" is also an identity, and yet criticism of Islam is still protected speech.

"Ahmed, the Muslim, beats his wife!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Muslims beat their wives" - Protected
"Bob, the gamer, is an evil rapist!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Gamers are dead" - protected

i have a point then

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

Recieving negative feedback =/= being forced to compromise your artistic vision.

Sadly, if you work for a company, the company gets to make decisions for you. You seem to have a hard time grasping this. It seems difficult for you to accept that artists don't get to live in some crazy whacked out space bubble where no outside influence can ever touch the absolute purity of their inner thoughts, but this is real life and in real life gaming is an industry, and in real life controversy is bad for an industry.

I mean, why do you think Mercedes withdrew its advertising support of Gawker media? It's because Gamergate generated controversy that they were afraid to be associated with. Does that mean you're censoring media? Does that mean you're forcing people to compromise their artistic vision?

No. It's just how the world works, and you clearly have no problem with it when it works in your favour.

you just defended numerous times scoring a game lower because it has sexy women

Yes. If that's what the reviewer wants to do and if their employers are okay with them doing so.

What use are your "ethics in video game journalism" if they don't include journalistic freedom?

oh so now you are arguing that readers should keep reading and supporting sites that we dont like just becuase that is the only kind of censorship you will attack?

No. I think if you don't like these sites you should either.

a) Work to change them.

or

b) Ignore them.


But if you choose option a) then I also think you need to follow through on that and accept that people can also work towards change in the games industry in whatever way they see fit.

oh so having people of all races, religions, from the left and from the right, genders and sexuality doesnt count?

What exactly do you think that proves?

If those people themselves oppose diversity (because they're hypocrites, opportunists or cowards) then does having them on side signal any great commitment to diversity?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

thats YOUR opinion, YOUR feelings mate, not a fact, if i say "i dont like gravity" we dont simply start floating, saying "i dont like this chess set" doesnt make it a worse chess set

This assumes that the purpose of the chess set is something other than to be enjoyed.

are the rules of chess changed because the pieces are sexy? are the strategies more limited?

Why does that even matter?

Maybe you think that's the only thing that's important, but that is YOUR opinion. The entire value of a chess set is entirely subjective because it is based on the ability to provoke a subjective experience, that of having fun or being entertained. If you think it isn't, if you think that the criteria upon which you value things are more factual than that of everyone else, then I am absolutely shocked you have the balls to try and lecture anyone about fact and opinion because you clearly understand neither.

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

but dont agre bayonetta is a worse game because it has a sexy MC, is no different from critizing a game for being violent, for having an anime artstyle, for using the color yellow, is it not different from arguing our hypothetical set of chess is a worse set of chess for having sexy pieces

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

you know when you are going to even ignore google search results for "sexy men" maybe you should stop arguing

Why?

Heck, do a web search and browse through some aggregators and surveys, you'll already get very different results.

What you're doing now is choosing the terms in which you get to validate your opinion as "fact" and then proclaiming it to be fact, which once again shows zero understanding of how opinion works.

-use things completely proven to be facts to support my argument
-that means my argument is wrong

sure buddy

you are not automatically entitled to your games not being sexist

True. But I am entitled to argue that they shouldn't be, contingent on the people whose platform I'm using don't object to me doing so.

-game devs are entitled to be free
-im entitled to say they shouldnt be free

There is absolutely no difference between you wanting to "change" reviews and me wanting to "change" games. Absolutely no difference. The difference between us is that I don't seem to be labouring under the delusion that adhering to my opinion somehow constitutes good practice or a requirement of professionalism.

of course asking for proper and FAIR reviews, as well as asking for the end of corruption and cronyism among game journalists is the exact same thing as asking devs to not be so damn free and appeal to my feelings

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

If that's the definition of censorship, then bring a suit to bear. Even if you can't, you'd think some GG Americans would have invoked the first amendment. Or some Europeans might have called in the ECHR.

Oh wait, they can't, because this isn't covered by any legally enforceable guarantee of free speech.

back to the "censorship is ok as long as its legal" argument i see

did you know in countries like north korean censorship IS legal, or rather the freedom of freespeech take a backseat to "defending the revolution", thats a thing

i already proved this idea of "censorship is ok as long as its legal" is bullshit with my country

gamers is an identity and therefore a thing

"Muslim" is also an identity, and yet criticism of Islam is still protected speech.

"Ahmed, the Muslim, beats his wife!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Muslims beat their wives" - Protected
"Bob, the gamer, is an evil rapist!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Gamers are dead" - protected

"Blacks are a bunch of thiefs"
"Jews are greedy and cant be trusted"

you are completely obssesed with the idea that just because something is legal, is fair, or morally correct, when history has proven us time and time again this to be absolutely garbage, we are not discussing whenever something is legal or not, tough we do know many of the things done by both sides arent, we are discussing the morality of these actions, but by all means, if you think silencing dissenting voices is perfectly fine go ahead, say it

i have a point then

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

Recieving negative feedback =/= being forced to compromise your artistic vision.

Sadly, if you work for a company, the company gets to make decisions for you. You seem to have a hard time grasping this. It seems difficult for you to accept that artists don't get to live in some crazy whacked out space bubble where no outside influence can ever touch the absolute purity of their inner thoughts, but this is real life and in real life gaming is an industry, and in real life controversy is bad for an industry.

I mean, why do you think Mercedes withdrew its advertising support of Gawker media? It's because Gamergate generated controversy that they were afraid to be associated with. Does that mean you're censoring media? Does that mean you're forcing people to compromise their artistic vision?

No. It's just how the world works, and you clearly have no problem with it when it works in your favour.

shamed and insulted to the point of self-censorship = being forced to compromise your artistic vision.

while do might have a point with your mercedes example, lets look at the "crimes" of each party, the artist of D:OS drew a woman with an iron bikini, gawker practices double standards, slander and croyism

you just defended numerous times scoring a game lower because it has sexy women

Yes. If that's what the reviewer wants to do and if their employers are okay with them doing so.

What use are your "ethics in video game journalism" if they don't include journalistic freedom?

"im free to provide inaccurate information and have conflicts of interests"

no, you cant do that, atleast not while calling yourself a journalists, if you want you can stop calling yourself a journalist and enjoy regular freedom to do all these things

oh so now you are arguing that readers should keep reading and supporting sites that we dont like just becuase that is the only kind of censorship you will attack?

No. I think if you don't like these sites you should either.

a) Work to change them.

or

b) Ignore them.


But if you choose option a) then I also think you need to follow through on that and accept that people can also work towards change in the games industry in whatever way they see fit.

that doesnt mean their changes are right, the changes GG asks of journalists are 100% justified, because all we are asking is journalistic integrity

look at the escapist, the site doesnt pander to either gg or anti-gg, and as such its not targetted by gg, balanced reporting

oh so having people of all races, religions, from the left and from the right, genders and sexuality doesnt count?

What exactly do you think that proves?

If those people themselves oppose diversity (because they're hypocrites, opportunists or cowards) then does having them on side signal any great commitment to diversity?

are you aware what you are saying is completely insane

it would be like me saying "im not nuclear kangaroo", i AM nuclear kangaroo, the fact i exist is proof of that, how can you have a group of diverse people, from all sorts of background and argue they are not diverse because of what they say?

also please go ahead and prove i am a hypocrite, opportunist and/or coward non-white, because otherwise it would prove not all people from gg are like that, and that we are diverse

 

[Silvanus]

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

If they were so freely interchangeable, it's odd how so many of them revert to type...

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

but dont agre bayonetta is a worse game because it has a sexy MC, is no different from critizing a game for being violent, for having an anime artstyle, for using the color yellow, is it not different from arguing our hypothetical set of chess is a worse set of chess for having sexy pieces

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

Who has decided that only the mechanics of the game are valid targets of criticism? That is merely your opinion on the matter. Other people have different priorities.

A great many people play games for the narratives, the stories, the characters.

The chess analogy assumes that chess and video games have precisely the same purpose. In one regard, they do; they are both activities, they are both for fun. The style is superficial in chess.

But video games are often more than just a puzzle. They have narratives; they tell stories; they are an artistic medium. On that basis, we could just as validly compare them to films. A film reviewer is expected to critique the narrative, the characterisation, the style. A book reviewer, too. They are regarded as integral to the experience-- just they are in video games, for a great many people.

If you regard the mechanics as the sole important aspect, that's fine. I do not. And there's no reason for your priorities to be more important than mine.

 

[Guerilla]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

That is an excellent comparison. If every genius wanted to to put their own fears and politics in reviews nothing would make any fucking sense and reviews would have died long ago. Imagine conservatives just like feminists whining about revealing clothes and "foul" language while at the same time praising guns, liberals whining about the gun culture in games, PETA fans saying that riding a horse and eating meat in games is animal abuse, and people afraid of spiders criticizing a game because it has spiders.

But people (except SJWs who are a "special" case) are smarter than that. They know that the review is about the game, not them and their politics, they know that by lecturing people who are only interested in the review of the game they will only annoy them and that there's a time and a place to share their beliefs and it certainly isn't there.

Like I said though SJWs are like a cult, they MUST have approved movies, games, books, way of speaking and everything outside that little bubble is shunned and confronted with slandering and unfounded accusations.

 

[Erttheking]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

 

[Guerilla]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

So you're dismissing his comparison by making a terrible strawman. Good job. In case you didn't know many people are really terrified of spiders. Someone could go on a rant in a review explaining why they're horrible creatures and why creators shouldn't add them to their games since there's a legitimate psychological condition called arachnophobia. [SJW mode on]Way to dismiss people's feelings and fears, how inconsiderate of you.[SJW mode off]

Furthermore, the word triggered has been so abused by feminists the last few years that literally ANYTHING [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33x7hnd&s=8] can be considered a trigger or PTSD.

 

[Erttheking]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

So you're dismissing his comparison by making a terrible strawman. Good job. In case you didn't know many people are really terrified of spiders. Someone could go on a rant in a review explaining why they're horrible creatures and why creators shouldn't add them to their games since there's a legitimate psychological condition called arachnophobia. [SJW mode on]Way to dismiss people's feelings and fears, how inconsiderate of you.[SJW mode off]

Furthermore, the word triggered has been so abused by feminists the last few years that literally ANYTHING [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33x7hnd&s=8] can be considered a trigger or PTSD.

You accuse me of using a strawman and then go on to use a strawman yourself. Really? Really? If you're going to counter my argument, don't concoct an over the top story and pretend it can compare to what's actually going on in the real world.

Don't talk about how words have been abused and then unironically talk about SJWs. Your arguments are loaded with hypocrisy.