Target Audience

[Something Amyss]

Not so strange given that when the story broke it was being pulled from certain stores in Australia and New Zealand, and now there's a "women's" group trying to have it banned in Norway, and a petition to have it pulled from stores in Canada.

When the story broke it was to one specific chain in one country. And it was international news then. Oddly enough, that it was so widely promoted may have led to that "chum" scent you were just talking about.

 

[Something Amyss]

Any real feminist would say that simulations of violence against women is fine as long as it's held to the same standards as violence against men.

Unfortunately, you do not get to define what a feminist is. Neither do I.

On the other hand, the petition didn't speak to feminists, that's just the label folks like you have jumped to without justification.

while its sweet of Americans and the rest to care

I doubt they actually care, though. That's the thing. People keep bringing up other examples of actual widespread issues with games and nobody cares or cared. In fact, if people weren't tossing around the "f" word, I'm not sure this would have gotten the attention it did.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nope, looks like my statement is still correct, as a feminist would advocate on the grounds of equality to men, and when violence against men is acceptable, and violence against women is not, it's no longer on the grounds of equality. Sorry, you're wrong.

How unfortunate that words go beyond basic dictionary definitions. Even Wikipedia, possibly the poorest source you could use, will delineate between different kinds of feminism and indicates that it's self-defining.

Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.

Which still ignores the part where this really didn't have anything you can tie to feminism in the first place. Especially if you hold to your single dictionary definition.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well then all words are entirely meaningless. Please. You're not a person i'd call an authority on that anyway Mr. "gamergate is a women's hatred movement and has nothing to do with gaming press no matter what anyone identifying as such says or does"

You know, quotes are used to indicate something someone actually said. Just a head's up since you're using them wrong. But no, words are not entirely meaningless because they go beyond dictionary definitions (of which you cherry picked one).

As for something i can tie to feminism, that isn't hard.

The petition was done on the grounds that it advocated violence against women. Being a petitions whose greivences are on the grounds of women's issue, it was done, by definition, by women's right's advocates, in other words, feminists. Specifically for women's issues too, as it ignores other forms of violence, specifically those against men.

Also, look at the stickers. "this exploits women". The game exploits all peoples, to narrow it to just women would take someone who is particularly worried about women's issues, in other words, a feminist.

Isn't it weird how one minute you say that real feminists don't do this, then the next you say you can tie it to feminism because of those same issues? It's almost like even you don't believe your own argument.

 

[Kardsymalone]

snip

Snip

snip

Ay ya after a hard days work I didn't realize I'd need to give an englsih lesson. Since neither of you explained how it somehow fit your argument or how I'm wrong I'm just going to address what I think you mean.

Two sentences in and I'm done talking to you. You lack the ability to reflect to such a degree that you would look at my post, look at the definition you posted, and still not understand why arguing with a definition that doesn't even say what you think it says is a terrible idea. That, or you're exceptionally lazy. Neither trait I've got time for.


Then you have the gall to insult my "englsih" ability. Comedy gold, man. Comedy gold.

So you ignore the fact that I addressed what you said just because I'm pissy in the first two sentences sure go ahead not my problem. Your post was putting words in my mouth I never said anything about it not being published I talked about it being suppressed. Also yes I insult your english since I did not "literally" say anything about the game not being published I don't know where you got that.

 

[Something Amyss]

But of course, you've never expressed any close-minded or hostile views towards gamergate, it would be a smart idea to not lie about things that are on record. I'm using quotes to paraphrase, deal with it.

Paraphrasing generally doesn't insert new material, which you have done here. So you're not paraphrasing me, you're not quoting me, and it's rather ironic that you're accusing me of closed-minded views when you routinely predetermine what I mean and then twist what I say to try and force it. Like when you accused me of advocating child abuse.

Also, you say "on record," but whenever I ask you to back up your claims you stop replying.

As for words, then no, if anyone is free to pick and choose their own meaning, then yes, it's meaningless, because the point of words is to communicate, and if you redefine the word enough to where it no longer becomes

Have you ever looked at a dictionary? I would assume so. You know where they have those numbers, like 1. and 2. and so on? Yeah, those are multiple meanings. Even going by the dictionary, you can freely pick and choose. That's not the same as meaningless. It's also not the same as redefining the words, though language is an evolving, breathing thing and redefinitions are common. The fact that you're speaking with "redefined" language and syntax is enough evidence of that.

Not really. You see, the meaning behind the definition speaks to that of a feminist, even a true one, but the fact that GTA encourages violence against men too means that the people who wrote the petition were misguided, and ignorant, or simply uncaring, of the fact that it affects men to.

This speaks to someone who believes in real feminist ideas, but expresses them through an unhealthy mindset and filter, the same way you can have a perfectly well-adjusted person who reads the bible, and have another who will blow up school in the name of that same book. It's called a radical.

But that doesn't make them not a "true feminist" then. If they're misguided, then they may still believe exactly what you claim is "true feminism."

Consistency.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, a misguided radical and a well-adjusted believer of a set of ideals are not the same thing.

The closest you've come to demonstrating that they're "radicals" is to compare them to people who blow up buildings in the name of the Bible. That's disingenuous at best.

Also, I notice you've shied away from the proof of me being "on record" again.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thanks for making me dig through my post history because you can't be honest.

Your quotes don't match up with your claims, yet again. You have to switch the scope of your claims in order for them to line up. Also, I hope you notice that you were the one insisting on hostility against Gamergate, when I simply called it out on its crap. And you even trotted out a quote where I specifically said "largely." You really don't understand language, do you?

Give it time. It takes a bit to sift through the forums.

It's been a month since I last asked you to back up your claims. You still haven't.

As for the other part of the argument, you don't think they're radicals?

I don't think your "simily" is consistent with your argument. Or with your definitions. Or with the concept of belief.

To further it, I don't think you get to decide what a true Christian is. There are literally thousands of branches of Christianity that believe various things, and if one interprets the book as a reason to murder people, well, you can't really say they're any less Christian than someone who doesn't. There is plenty of violence and vague language and edicts of hate and even murder in the Bible. The people who turn it into a message of love are every bit as guilty of cherry picking as the people who turn it into a message of hate. Saying someone is a radical doesn't mean they're not a "true Christian," any more than your example here about "true feminism."

Even then, you have to make a logic leap to call this a feminist-specific issue after you just dictated the people involved aren't true feminists. All you have is non-exclusive terms that you jumped on, much like the radical in your example probably latched on to what was convenient in scripture.

 

[Fiairflair]

Really busting out the strong language in the sign off today, hey.

Not that I object (although on a side note: HEY! Australia matters! We're real people, even if we do speak funny and dress poorly), but the issue is probably better supported by a less colourful expression of opinion.

Whatever makes you feel better though, Grey.

 

[mecegirl]

while its sweet of Americans and the rest to care

I doubt they actually care, though. That's the thing. People keep bringing up other examples of actual widespread issues with games and nobody cares or cared. In fact, if people weren't tossing around the "f" word, I'm not sure this would have gotten the attention it did.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Peoples minds can be selective in ways that defy logic. So they may actually care while completely blanking out other issues. Possibly because of a known or unknown personal bias. Possibly because of ignorance.n

But on the topic of actual censorship. I think I may have only seen one thread on the topic of what's going on in India here, and I'm not even sure if any Escapist writers spoke of it. Either way it happened a good month ago and the site wasn't hit with multiple threads about the censorship there. The cynic in me has a few guesses why.

 

[Something Amyss]

But on the topic of actual censorship. I think I may have only seen one thread on the topic of what's going on in India here, and I'm not even sure if any Escapist writers spoke of it. Either way it happened a good month ago and the site wasn't hit with multiple threads about the censorship there. The cynic in me has a few guesses why.

That was one of the things I was referencing. The thread petered out at two pages, and there was a total of one person with a consistent position to their current one complaining about censorship.

Really busting out the strong language in the sign off today, hey.

Not that I object (although on a side note: HEY! Australia matters! We're real people, even if we do speak funny and dress poorly), but the issue is probably better supported by a less colourful expression of opinion.

Whatever makes you feel better though, Grey.

He's not saying Australia doesn't matter, he's pointing out the contradiction between our (US) ratings system, which forces self-censorship if someone wants in on the retail market, compared to a single company opting to not stock. Perhaps a better example would be the Australian ratings board, but since most of the people flipping tables are my fellow Americans, I'm guessing Grey was trying to point out that we have worse than this in our own back yard.

But, of course, that one lacks the ERMAGERD FEMINISTS thing that really set people off.

 

[Something Amyss]

If all you can do with your argument is tell me which words i can and can't use, then there's really nowhere we can go with this, is there?

Where did I say that?

If all you can do is say i can't call things things, even after trying to work with you on how you want me to set up the terminology, then really, you're not here to communicate, you're here to be difficult and to waste my time.

Honey, you can call anything anything you want. That wasn't the point and I suspect you know better.

To avoid another bullshit semantics argument with you, i'm going to make up words for them.

This isn't bullshit semantics, this is literally changing your entire argument.

It is the difference between someone who finds homosexuality gross, but accepts that these are people and they have the right to have sex with another consenting adult, even one of the same gender, and someone who goes and actively votes against gay marriage.

No, following your example, it'd be the difference between someone who votes against gay marriage and someone who goes out and beats the shit out of gay people. Both are active in their beliefs, they simply enact them in different ways.

And you still can't establish that feminists were involved.

By the way, why is it okay for Gamergate to boycott content they don't like, but not for "feminists?"