Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Hirota]

Feminism makes a lot of sense, and I fully support it. Radical Feminism is a disgrace to the movement and gives it a bad rep - luckily they're a minority.

Unfortunately they are a very, very vocal minority

[Geanna]

Feminism makes a lot of sense, and I fully support it. Radical Feminism is a disgrace to the movement and gives it a bad rep - luckily they're a minority.

Unfortunately they are a very, very vocal minority

Very true, and sadly the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

[Susurruses]

The conversational technique you suggested is something that I actually did try and which did not work. So my example of where this kind of thing has typically come up for me is in this context:

Over the last several years, conversations have been held publicly about the atmosphere surrounding consent, including but not limited to objectification, street harassment, yes means yes no means no, affirmative/enthusiastic consent, modesty debates, entitlement, etc. In such conversations it almost inevitably tends to run to this general trend: we need to accept women's right to consent and not consent and encourage women to be confident and feel safe; we need to teach men not to rape and not to support rape culture.

I think it is reasonable that I object to this narrative. However I've generally found that it rarely matters HOW I go about objecting or introducing other ways of talking about it--many people accept that narrative and act as though they believe that any disagreement with it means that you don't care about women's rights.

What I would like for instance to have is public discussion about consent that accepts that women have agency. This doesn't have to mean 'she was asking for it'. What it does mean is that women are quite capable of assuming all men want sex all the time and therefore it is less necessary to establish consent with them.

I'm less concerned about extreme fringe groups than I am about mainstream people who go with currently held assumptions that are unhelpful for me and others who don't fit the common mainstream narrative. I'm tired of hearing blanket platitude statements like "we need to teach men/boys not to rape"; "we need to stop teaching our girls modesty", "we need to ban bossy". While these people may not represent the mainstream, it cannot be denied that they are highly influential people who guide policy.

The instant I read "women's", I actually responded with "everyone's".
At least within my own social circle, that specific/exclusionary language is considered counterproductive.
Human rights are human rights; for all people.

I absolutely agree that that narrative is painfully flawed.
Like, teach everyone the importance of consent, teach everyone what behaviour constitutes abuse & why it is wrongful, help everyone feel safe/comfortable/confident.
Breaking down things like rape culture is supposed to benefit everyone (.. except rapists, I guess), so starting from a point of exclusivity with any aspect of that is a Very Bad Idea.

Unfortunately I have encountered people like that. .. in a myriad of contexts actually.
I think it's a very bad habit some humans have of clinging to a certain narrative to the exclusion (& active denial) of all and any contradiction (particularly from 'outsiders', but I've seen people turn on those that are supposed to be on the same side).
.. not really sure how to address that type of thing. My experience is such people are a lost cause.
Some people will listen, some people will doubt and then maybe consider it, & some people are just going to double-down and refuse to budge on literally anything they've decided is true.

I guess my problem with the 'women have agency' vs 'men deserve the freedom to choose/deny' concept is it's still operating within that flawed narrative.
Consent is (criminally?) undervalued in general.
Kids need to be taught to be considerate, to communicate, & to obtain/establish consent for interactions.
... many adults need to be taught the same.
Those three things are essential to establishing & sustaining trust, and to developing healthy mutually-beneficial relationships.
They're also conveniently agnostic to any specific aspect of an individual, because they don't specify a sex or a gender or a race or anything else; they're just important for every positive relationship.
So honestly, I'd replace the (seemingly dominant?) narrative pretty much entirely instead of merely tweaking it.
This is a human right we're talking about after all.
(Within the circle of people I know, this is definitely something that is shared.
It's not even necessarily about including men specifically but about not excluding everyone that is not a woman; about recognising that supposed rights should not be limited to a select few based on arbitrary markers.)

The problem that can occur with raising this issue with some people (especially the 'radical' sorts) is they can see it as threatening progress or potential progress or.. idk, some other bullshit.
On top of that you've got past traumas complicating things to where some people just have a really visceral reaction to (the perception of) men trying to tell them what to do, or similar issues.
People like that tend to believe that women are not necessarily the sole sufferers but are the majority and/or that women are less likely to engage in whatever sort of abusive behaviour is under discussion.
... whether they're right or not is irrelevant, because again this is a human rights matter; just because a specific group within (a hypothetical) society commits 1% of violent crimes vs another group committing 99% of violent crimes doesn't mean the former group should in any way get away with things, nor that those targeted by them should be neglected or downplayed.
The law is (supposed to be) neutral and fair.
(It isn't, but that's again more than a gender issue.)

I agree that there are individuals and groups that put forward narratives that are exclusionary and that these people can do more harm than good in the process.
... I am however not sure how one would begin to address that other than engaging people on a personal level to ascertain their own thoughts on the matter and address any flaws in their knowledge or reasoning.
Progress can be slow, and in the meantime the lobbyist types can force through potentially harmful change.
Is there a solution to that?

[Susurruses]

Clicky Clicky

Thus my misgivings with Rads - sadly people can hijack a movement and take it too far.

I was actually going to point out that Chessmistress is a radfem but you beat me to it.

I'm pro-equality, pro-LGBT, and pro-not-being-a-dick. Against bigoted agendas disguised as "progressive."

Also, that's one of my favorite comics.

You're pretty bad at the 'T' part, given your use of "both genders".
Might wanna not forget non-binary types, lest you fall into the same pit of transphobic fuckery that Chess is embodying.

[Susurruses]

They do so exist!

It's okay. I don't think radical feminists are women either.
<snipped>.

Maybe engaging in transphobia (see: deliberate misgendering) is a bad idea, and mimicking Chess's ludicrous unacceptable bullshit is not reflecting very well on yourself.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's okay. I don't think radical feminists are women either.
<snipped>.

Maybe engaging in transphobia (see: deliberate misgendering) is a bad idea, and mimicking Chess's ludicrous unacceptable bullshit is not reflecting very well on yourself.

Turnabout is fair play and if she's not capable of putting herself in my shoes I'm gonna break the toes until they fit.

[The Lone Alliance]

So, that's the real answer?

Nope, I just pointed out multiple alternatives, you only picked one.

"Men going their own way"?
I'm not against celibacy for males! I couldn't care less!

See the point below.
Except it won't just be celibacy and you know it.

Some men will go out and hire prostitutes, they will look at porn, and find wives who aren't radical feminists.

If more non-feminist women have children and radical feminists have less, without the attempt to force through idiotic ideas such as Queer theory the numbers aren't so good in the Rad fem camp is it?

As long as they do not insult and harass women online...

But we both know they will.

Though I support insulting women online if they insult others first, having a vagina shouldn't give you the right to act like a jerk without someone calling you a jerk back.

I also support the same visa versa, your genitals should not give you diplomatic immunity of getting told of your bad behavior.

Maybe engaging in transphobia (see: deliberate misgendering) is a bad idea, and mimicking Chess's ludicrous unacceptable bullshit is not reflecting very well on yourself.

Give respect get respect, if CM won't give respect then why bother giving it back?

[New Edom]

The conversational technique you suggested is something that I actually did try and which did not work. So my example of where this kind of thing has typically come up for me is in this context:

Over the last several years, conversations have been held publicly about the atmosphere surrounding consent, including but not limited to objectification, street harassment, yes means yes no means no, affirmative/enthusiastic consent, modesty debates, entitlement, etc. In such conversations it almost inevitably tends to run to this general trend: we need to accept women's right to consent and not consent and encourage women to be confident and feel safe; we need to teach men not to rape and not to support rape culture.

I think it is reasonable that I object to this narrative. However I've generally found that it rarely matters HOW I go about objecting or introducing other ways of talking about it--many people accept that narrative and act as though they believe that any disagreement with it means that you don't care about women's rights.

What I would like for instance to have is public discussion about consent that accepts that women have agency. This doesn't have to mean 'she was asking for it'. What it does mean is that women are quite capable of assuming all men want sex all the time and therefore it is less necessary to establish consent with them.

I'm less concerned about extreme fringe groups than I am about mainstream people who go with currently held assumptions that are unhelpful for me and others who don't fit the common mainstream narrative. I'm tired of hearing blanket platitude statements like "we need to teach men/boys not to rape"; "we need to stop teaching our girls modesty", "we need to ban bossy". While these people may not represent the mainstream, it cannot be denied that they are highly influential people who guide policy.

The instant I read "women's", I actually responded with "everyone's".
At least within my own social circle, that specific/exclusionary language is considered counterproductive.
Human rights are human rights; for all people.

I absolutely agree that that narrative is painfully flawed.
Like, teach everyone the importance of consent, teach everyone what behaviour constitutes abuse & why it is wrongful, help everyone feel safe/comfortable/confident.
Breaking down things like rape culture is supposed to benefit everyone (.. except rapists, I guess), so starting from a point of exclusivity with any aspect of that is a Very Bad Idea.

Unfortunately I have encountered people like that. .. in a myriad of contexts actually.
I think it's a very bad habit some humans have of clinging to a certain narrative to the exclusion (& active denial) of all and any contradiction (particularly from 'outsiders', but I've seen people turn on those that are supposed to be on the same side).
.. not really sure how to address that type of thing. My experience is such people are a lost cause.
Some people will listen, some people will doubt and then maybe consider it, & some people are just going to double-down and refuse to budge on literally anything they've decided is true.

I guess my problem with the 'women have agency' vs 'men deserve the freedom to choose/deny' concept is it's still operating within that flawed narrative.
Consent is (criminally?) undervalued in general.
Kids need to be taught to be considerate, to communicate, & to obtain/establish consent for interactions.
... many adults need to be taught the same.
Those three things are essential to establishing & sustaining trust, and to developing healthy mutually-beneficial relationships.
They're also conveniently agnostic to any specific aspect of an individual, because they don't specify a sex or a gender or a race or anything else; they're just important for every positive relationship.
So honestly, I'd replace the (seemingly dominant?) narrative pretty much entirely instead of merely tweaking it.
This is a human right we're talking about after all.
(Within the circle of people I know, this is definitely something that is shared.
It's not even necessarily about including men specifically but about not excluding everyone that is not a woman; about recognising that supposed rights should not be limited to a select few based on arbitrary markers.)

The problem that can occur with raising this issue with some people (especially the 'radical' sorts) is they can see it as threatening progress or potential progress or.. idk, some other bullshit.
On top of that you've got past traumas complicating things to where some people just have a really visceral reaction to (the perception of) men trying to tell them what to do, or similar issues.
People like that tend to believe that women are not necessarily the sole sufferers but are the majority and/or that women are less likely to engage in whatever sort of abusive behaviour is under discussion.
... whether they're right or not is irrelevant, because again this is a human rights matter; just because a specific group within (a hypothetical) society commits 1% of violent crimes vs another group committing 99% of violent crimes doesn't mean the former group should in any way get away with things, nor that those targeted by them should be neglected or downplayed.
The law is (supposed to be) neutral and fair.
(It isn't, but that's again more than a gender issue.)

I agree that there are individuals and groups that put forward narratives that are exclusionary and that these people can do more harm than good in the process.
... I am however not sure how one would begin to address that other than engaging people on a personal level to ascertain their own thoughts on the matter and address any flaws in their knowledge or reasoning.
Progress can be slow, and in the meantime the lobbyist types can force through potentially harmful change.
Is there a solution to that?

I think you made a number of very good points and generally a good analysis of the problem. it probably doesn't help that at major discussions of the subject things either get polarized between self identified progressives and traditionalists or end up generally nitpicking what is already agreed with.

I observed a number of feminist events discussing rape culture, and noticed that the following kinds of men who were considered either feminists or allies to feminists were speaking.

1. Former patriarchs. Former sports heroes, coaches, actors, people at the top of the game recognizing what women suffer, their contributions to it, and urging men to change.

2. Marginalized men. Men who don't fit what is called the gender binary one way or another, who felt excluded and ashamed in general society.

3. Men who express a former ignorance before Gender Studies/attending a slutwalk/having talks and encounters with women enlightened them as to the freedom feminism offered.

I think that these men sharing their experience, while fair enough, doesn't really help people form a clear picture and just reinforces the narrative.

A counter to that would be probably rather unpleasant. It would involve things like men talking about say their abuse as a child by women. It would involve people pointing out that violence towards men in movies is far more acceptable to people than violence towards women in movies is. it would involve pointing out that human suffering is just human suffering.

[Hirota]

Getting back to the main subject....

http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate ... omb-threat
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05 ... mb-threat/

Anywhere between 200 to 300 people met up in DC over the weekend, all of whom are part of gamergate. Some of the aGGros got a bit salty over it, and tried to prevent the event from happening.

First of all, kudos to Polygon for improved reporting - with Ben Kuchera slightly out of the picture, hopefully they'll sort themselves out. Meanwhile Gawker continues to fail miserably. A number of videos are on youtube and photos on twitter showing a fairly diverse bunch on the streets of DC whilst the police check the building.

Is anyone else noticing a trend with how SJW's don't want benign individuals to gather?

[Destiny Island]

Getting back to the main subject....

http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate ... omb-threat
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05 ... mb-threat/

Anywhere between 200 to 300 people met up in DC over the weekend, all of whom are part of gamergate. Some of the aGGros got a bit salty over it, and tried to prevent the event from happening.

First of all, kudos to Polygon for improved reporting - with Ben Kuchera slightly out of the picture, hopefully they'll sort themselves out. Meanwhile Gawker continues to fail miserably. A number of videos are on youtube and photos on twitter showing a fairly diverse bunch on the streets of DC whilst the police check the building.

But remember, GamerGate is the terrorist organization. *nods*

[Phocidaea]

Anita Sarkeesian speech is targeted by non-credible anonymous threats: Pull out of speaking gig, use sobstory to pull in donations; media automatically assumes that threat is real and that Gamergate must be behind it because Gamergate is literally a terrorist hate movement who we expect to do something like this!

Gamergate meetup is targeted by non-credible anonymous threats: Keep calm and carry on once police give the all clear as though threats never happened; media either pretends threats were never made or weasels around with words like "alleged" and "apparent" and asserts that the threats were by third-party trolls because anti-Gamergate is a peaceful (*cough*killallmen*cough*) progressive force and would never do something like this!

[Hirota]

But remember, GamerGate is the terrorist organization. *nods*

I'm sure the bomb threats against Gamergate and companies which stand up against SJW's were committed by third party trolls. After all, aGGros were more than keen to acknowledge that threats against Sarkessian were probably made by third party trolls weren't they? Oh wait...

This SJW narrative continues to fall apart.

[New Edom]

Getting back to the main subject....

http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate ... omb-threat
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05 ... mb-threat/

Anywhere between 200 to 300 people met up in DC over the weekend, all of whom are part of gamergate. Some of the aGGros got a bit salty over it, and tried to prevent the event from happening.

First of all, kudos to Polygon for improved reporting - with Ben Kuchera slightly out of the picture, hopefully they'll sort themselves out. Meanwhile Gawker continues to fail miserably. A number of videos are on youtube and photos on twitter showing a fairly diverse bunch on the streets of DC whilst the police check the building.

Is anyone else noticing a trend with how SJW's don't want benign individuals to gather?

What I said above is relevant to this. SJWs tend to believe that their analysis of social issues is fact, therefore responses are justified based on that. There is no gap of understanding to bridge, no difference of opinion; there is simply what they believe is absolute truth about social evils that must be fought tooth and nail. New information that doesn't fit within the paradigm is just deceit.

[The Lone Alliance]

A counter to that would be probably rather unpleasant. It would involve things like men talking about say their abuse as a child by women. It would involve people pointing out that violence towards men in movies is far more acceptable to people than violence towards women in movies is. it would involve pointing out that human suffering is just human suffering.

It would require rejecting identity politics and realizing that we are all just humans.

Identity politics is too addictive for these people though, have to divide humans up so you'll have an OTHER to blame for all your ills. It's been done since the dawn of humanity.

Tribalism at it's core.

Getting back to the main subject....

http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate ... omb-threat
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05 ... mb-threat/

Anywhere between 200 to 300 people met up in DC over the weekend, all of whom are part of gamergate. Some of the aGGros got a bit salty over it, and tried to prevent the event from happening.

First of all, kudos to Polygon for improved reporting - with Ben Kuchera slightly out of the picture, hopefully they'll sort themselves out. Meanwhile Gawker continues to fail miserably. A number of videos are on youtube and photos on twitter showing a fairly diverse bunch on the streets of DC whilst the police check the building.

Is anyone else noticing a trend with how SJW's don't want benign individuals to gather?

What I said above is relevant to this. SJWs tend to believe that their analysis of social issues is fact, therefore responses are justified based on that. There is no gap of understanding to bridge, no difference of opinion; there is simply what they believe is absolute truth about social evils that must be fought tooth and nail. New information that doesn't fit within the paradigm is just deceit.

It's the same chain of logic that birthers, truthers, and other conspiracy theorists use, anything that doesn't stand up to their confirmation bias is automatically part of the conspiracy.

Yet many of these people are supposed to be educated.

[New Edom]

And not only are they supposed to be educated, they are often the educators. So this is why for instance we get a blogger saying "the reason I am shy is because of Patriarchy" rather than "I need to learn to become more confident."

[The Lone Alliance]

And not only are they supposed to be educated, they are often the educators. So this is why for instance we get a blogger saying "the reason I am shy is because of Patriarchy" rather than "I need to learn to become more confident."

Well that's what happens when you allow opinions to pass as knowledge and you allow ideologue educators to rubber stamp peer review.

If someone would drag all them into the sun and forced them to explain their logic to people other than each other then their entire foundation would be destroyed.

[Susurruses]

I think you made a number of very good points and generally a good analysis of the problem. it probably doesn't help that at major discussions of the subject things either get polarized between self identified progressives and traditionalists or end up generally nitpicking what is already agreed with.

I observed a number of feminist events discussing rape culture, and noticed that the following kinds of men who were considered either feminists or allies to feminists were speaking.

1. Former patriarchs. Former sports heroes, coaches, actors, people at the top of the game recognizing what women suffer, their contributions to it, and urging men to change.

2. Marginalized men. Men who don't fit what is called the gender binary one way or another, who felt excluded and ashamed in general society.

3. Men who express a former ignorance before Gender Studies/attending a slutwalk/having talks and encounters with women enlightened them as to the freedom feminism offered.

I think that these men sharing their experience, while fair enough, doesn't really help people form a clear picture and just reinforces the narrative.

A counter to that would be probably rather unpleasant. It would involve things like men talking about say their abuse as a child by women. It would involve people pointing out that violence towards men in movies is far more acceptable to people than violence towards women in movies is. it would involve pointing out that human suffering is just human suffering.

.. pretty sure you identified exactly the type of people that seem to be given a platform in these kinds of events.
Celebrities, outcasts, & 'the enlightened'.
(The lattermost sometimes catches flak actually, given the tendency for them to still be ignorant of a lot of issues. Dunning-Kruger effect.)
Celebrities for sheer publicity/influence, outcasts because there's a group that ostensibly welcomes them & they serve to highlight the negative effects of the current culture on (some) men, & the lattermost because there's strength in numbers and it reinforces the progressive aspect.

I can see a potential issue with your proposed solution however:
People advocating for specific subsections of humanity tend to dislike the "But we're ALL HUMAN" angle, because it erases individual experiences and the difference in perspective.
(ie: White people in the USA being all "We all bleed red!" and conveniently ignoring the massive disparities between their experiences & the experiences of black people.)

They're not necessarily (always) wrong... but I find it absolutely ridiculous that any feminist would basically inform men that have experienced abuse (particularly abuse from women) that they (essentially) have no place in feminist discourse (& thus imply that they should basically go hang out with MRAs anti-feminists??).
It's frustrating (& I imagine even more-so for yourself).
.. would that potentially work? Pointing out "Look, either you stop being exclusionary or the only alternatives are going to be your opposition. Make a choice." ?
(Fuck knows. I feel like that would be overly optimistic and liable to just get a confrontational backlash because humans can be assholes. Granted phrasing it as above is pretty adversarial to begin with.)

Best I can do is try to broach the issue/s with those I interact with personally if they come up.

I suppose the more aggressively unpleasant solution (which is absolutely one I would understand people not taking) is to speak in visceral detail of their own experience in such a way that it cannot reasonably be ignored or dismissed.
(Usually the response is either actual empathy as the other party realises they've fucked up and there is a human being in front of them OR.. they feel socially obligated to back down in order to avoid looking bad [due to either general asshole behaviour or contradicting themselves], and either way it tends to influence onlookers to realise there was a flaw in the presented reasoning/narrative.)

In regards to the movies thing:
Male violence is normalised in general.
(Which could actually be tied back into the draft, where combat/violence is seen as the domain of men.)
In that instance, the cultural products reflect it more than they guide it, I think.
Alongside which we have a wide array of sexist fuckery towards women and men both.
(Which I'd like to think is liable to change over time, albeit after the whole progressive-reactionary thing flares up and subsequently settles.)
Oh. It's also probably worth noting that violence towards women in cinema is likely criticised so heavily because of the current issue of domestic violence and abuse towards women; it's seen as normalising/reinforcing the concept.
Particularly when it comes to completely unnecessary sexual violence, or 'rape for drama', which is (as far as I know?) exclusively towards female characters.
(Which could actually be argued as basically pretending male victims don't exist or aren't worth mentioning.)
To be honest, this sort of thing is increasingly coming across as an awful intersection of traditional sexism and flawed opposition to such. Which is irritating.
Is there a fix for that other than the above-mentioned "bring it up with those one knows and interacts with" ?


I'd also just like to state here that it's nice to have a productive and pleasant conversation with someone over topics like this (even if the topics themselves are not the most pleasant).
This thread in particular has gotten a bit silly at times, so it's much-appreciated.
So thanks for the well-reasoned honest communication.

[Susurruses]

And not only are they supposed to be educated, they are often the educators. So this is why for instance we get a blogger saying "the reason I am shy is because of Patriarchy" rather than "I need to learn to become more confident."

Those two things aren't exactly related.
I mean, one is a statement of cause. The other is a statement of intent.
If I fell over and bruised my knee, I'd be able to accurately state that the reason was.. say, ice on the ground.
Following which I might avoid walking on icy ground and/or express that I should be more careful if/when I do so.

If sexism in society pushes certain gender roles upon people, it's not inaccurate to state that such pressure has shaped someone's personality.
However you're right there are some people that seem to take that as the end of chain.
I mean, acknowledging a problem doesnt make it go away.

So given your example, it's a case of "Patriarchal bullshit has made withdrawn" -> "This is a bad thing" -> "The bullshit needs to be broken down, and/or I need to try and break down the effects it has already had on myself (and others)".
(I'm assuming the original statement is true for the sake of the above.)

[Susurruses]

And not only are they supposed to be educated, they are often the educators. So this is why for instance we get a blogger saying "the reason I am shy is because of Patriarchy" rather than "I need to learn to become more confident."

Well that's what happens when you allow opinions to pass as knowledge and you allow ideologue educators to rubber stamp peer review.

If someone would drag all them into the sun and forced them to explain their logic to people other than each other then their entire foundation would be destroyed.

I wouldn't be so sure.
What makes you think there is no merit whatsoever to it?
Is that not a rather bold ideological stance to take without an absolute understanding of what you are passing judgment upon?

[Susurruses]

It would require rejecting identity politics and realizing that we are all just humans.

Identity politics is too addictive for these people though, have to divide humans up so you'll have an OTHER to blame for all your ills. It's been done since the dawn of humanity.

Tribalism at it's core.

What I said above is relevant to this. SJWs tend to believe that their analysis of social issues is fact, therefore responses are justified based on that. There is no gap of understanding to bridge, no difference of opinion; there is simply what they believe is absolute truth about social evils that must be fought tooth and nail. New information that doesn't fit within the paradigm is just deceit.

It's the same chain of logic that birthers, truthers, and other conspiracy theorists use, anything that doesn't stand up to their confirmation bias is automatically part of the conspiracy.

Yet many of these people are supposed to be educated.

Um, it's not exactly about dividing people up?
I mean, yeah you could probably make that argument.
But you'd be missing out the rather important subsequent step of recognising the diverse experiences and struggles and supporting one another.
Recognising difference does not mean advocating internecine conflict.

... I also find it a little strange that you don't realise you're engaging in the very thing you're accusing others of.
I mean, you're doing the whole 'othering' thing and tribalising and demonising and just.. cognitive dissonance?
C'mon, you can do better. Be as critical of your own 'side' in things.

[Susurruses]

But remember, GamerGate is the terrorist organization. *nods*

I'm sure the bomb threats against Gamergate and companies which stand up against SJW's were committed by third party trolls. After all, aGGros were more than keen to acknowledge that threats against Sarkessian were probably made by third party trolls weren't they? Oh wait...

This SJW narrative continues to fall apart.

I feel like there may be a false equivalence somewhere..

Regardless of that, does anyone on any side realistically agree with the sort of asshole that would make a bomb threat?
Really?
Are we going to consider those people representative?

Meanwhile, "companies that stand up against SJWs" ?? What?
Oh yeah, those people demanding social change are super scary, man.
Takes such strength to ignore a relative minority when doing so doesn't impact the company's profitability. *rolls eyes*

I feel like you've gotten a little overly invested in this 'anti-SJW' narrative perhaps.

[Geanna]

I'm sure the bomb threats against Gamergate and companies which stand up against SJW's were committed by third party trolls. After all, aGGros were more than keen to acknowledge that threats against Sarkessian were probably made by third party trolls weren't they? Oh wait...

This SJW narrative continues to fall apart.

I feel like there may be a false equivalence somewhere..

Regardless of that, does anyone on any side realistically agree with the sort of asshole that would make a bomb threat?
Really?
Are we going to consider those people representative?

Meanwhile, "companies that stand up against SJWs" ?? What?
Oh yeah, those people demanding social change are super scary, man.
Takes such strength to ignore a relative minority when doing so doesn't impact the company's profitability. *rolls eyes*

I feel like you've gotten a little overly invested in this 'anti-SJW' narrative perhaps.

Suggestion - put all of your replies in one post so it doesn't clog up a page of just you.

[Hirota]

I feel like you've gotten a little overly invested in this 'anti-SJW' narrative perhaps.

As a counter for the false narrative peddled by people on here and in the press? Abso-flippin-lutely. I'm not interested in a narrative, I am interested in the truth.

[Gauthier]

I'm sure the bomb threats against Gamergate and companies which stand up against SJW's were committed by third party trolls. After all, aGGros were more than keen to acknowledge that threats against Sarkessian were probably made by third party trolls weren't they? Oh wait...

This SJW narrative continues to fall apart.

I feel like there may be a false equivalence somewhere..

Regardless of that, does anyone on any side realistically agree with the sort of asshole that would make a bomb threat?
Really?
Are we going to consider those people representative?

Meanwhile, "companies that stand up against SJWs" ?? What?
Oh yeah, those people demanding social change are super scary, man.
Takes such strength to ignore a relative minority when doing so doesn't impact the company's profitability. *rolls eyes*

I feel like you've gotten a little overly invested in this 'anti-SJW' narrative perhaps.

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

No, but painting anyone who disagrees with any proposed change as a vicious misogynistic basement dwelling little boy just might be.