Quinnspericy: Mod of /r/gaming el_chupacupcake pushed to step down after Zoe Quinn update.

[Mooshi]

This thread has taught me some people are way too hostile with needlessly insulting other members. Just like threats of eternal hell fire isn't going to convert someone to your religion, in fighting with members isn't going to convert them to your side.

We're giving this scandle way more attention than it deserves at this point, even /v/ is sick of it. If anything, this is only adding fuel to a highschool drama fire. Quinn's rep is already ruined, Fez guy quit, biased reddit mod is sacked and gaming integrity from sites like Kotaku is long gone. What are we still at each others necks for?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

This thread has taught me some people are way too hostile with needlessly insulting other members. Just like threats of eternal hell fire isn't going to convert someone to your religion, in fighting with members isn't going to convert them to your side.

We're giving this scandle way more attention than it deserves at this point, even /v/ is sick of it. If anything, this is only adding fuel to a highschool drama fire. Quinn's rep is already ruined, Fez guy quit, biased reddit mod is sacked and gaming integrity from sites like Kotaku is long gone. What are we still at each others necks for?

 

You know what's so funny about this; I have said the exact same thing to you, but you brushed it aside so that you can continue to insult one simpleton person.

[kaloszer]

You're still up in arms about zoe, maybe its time to switch the target to journalists themselves ?

Patricia "Gorilla" Hernandez for example is doing this.

[Mooshi]

You know what's so funny about this; I have said the exact same thing to you, but you brushed it aside so that you can continue to insult one simpleton person.

The thing is, I genuinely meant my disgust and don't regret my words. However, once you say your piece, there is literally nowhere else to go. Some people are literally saying the same things now in different ways, yourself included. You've said it yourself that it's a heated stalemate and I agree with that.

Regardless of which side someone takes, no one can deny how shameless this issue is for all.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

The thing is, I genuinely meant my disgust and don't regret my words. However, once you say your piece, there is literally nowhere else to go. Some people are literally saying the same things now in different ways, yourself included. You've said it yourself that it's a heated stalemate and I agree with that.

Regardless of which side someone takes, no one can deny how shameless this issue is for all.

 

Well, I have tried my best to state my repetition in clear, so there is that.

 

This is why I take the "neither" side, but that position apparently does not exist, according to some people. This binary mentality of "If you don't hate <something> to the teeth, that automatically means that you worship it" gets on my nerves. It is already happening to Apple, the console platforms, and the convolution in the mideast. I do not want this to spread to more petty matters.

 

I understand the issues full well, but as @ionbasa said, the SNR is too low to make anything useful out of it.

[Mooshi]

Well, I have tried my best to state my repetition in clear, so there is that.

 

This is why I take the "neither" side, but that position apparently does not exist, according to some people. This binary mentality of "If you don't hate <something> to the teeth, that automatically means that you worship it" gets on my nerves. It is already happening to Apple, the console platforms, and the convolution in the mideast. I do not want this to spread to more petty matters.

 

I understand the issues full well, but as @ionbasa said, the SNR is too low to make anything useful out of it.

Yep.

I've noticed you were being branded a Zoe supporter and I cringed reading that. Kinda like when I had a conservative views on something and got acused of watching Fox news and that was annoying so I fully understand that.

[LAwLz]

I don't get what the outrage is all about. I don't know:

- if it's because a girl fucked around to get her way;

- if it's because some dudes fucked a girl to get their way;

- if it's because a girl made a dubious Indiegogo campaign;

- if it's because of the, so called "New Media", business model is a piece of shit model that incentivates the publishing of biased information - just like the old media;

- if it's because tech journalism is in fact just like any other kind of journalism in any media - that might surprise some maybe;

- of if it's simply because everyone has an agenda.

Here are a few things that are terrible about the story:

1) She successfully managed to make false reports about sexual harassment to make herself famous ("gaming journalists" love telling everyone how oppressed women are) and made Wizardchan get a ton of undeserved hate. You can think of this as a bully with lots of friends calling one of the nerdy kids, who has no friends, a bully, and then get the local newspaper involved and talking about how the little nerd is a horrible human being, encouraging people to send him hate mail.

That alone is enough to hate her. I absolutely hate people who victimize themselves. But the terrible things she did are just getting started.

 

2) She has admitted to raping her boyfriend. Personally I don't think it is rape but by her own definition it is rape if you are having two sexual relationships at the same time without one or both of the parties knowing about each other. When she cheated on her boyfriend she (again, by her own definition) raped him. And yes we have evidence of her cheating on him. Her ex-boyfriend has posted chat logs on the website. She even tries to spin it around like it was her boyfriend's fault she cheated.

 

3) She has manipulated "gaming journalists" to not write about this or any other negative thing about her. When the game developer Temkin was accused of raping a woman, it was all over gaming sites. Kotaku even wrote that Temkin should not have defended himself when he was accused, but rather he should have talked about rape victims. Hmm... Yeah that surely wouldn't send the wrong vibe. "Hey I was accused of raping a woman so now I am going to talk about the horrors rape victims has to go through". That sounds like a terrible idea if you are innocent. So what happens when Quinn, by her own definition, raped her boyfriend? Nothing of course! Because reporting about a female developer doing something bad, especially a female developer that is giving you sexual favors in your spare time, is misogynistic.

This is from an interview with Jaffe showing how Kotaku has been spewing SJW agenda through their "gaming" site in the past as well. Damn I love Jaffe so much in that interview.

Remember, these kinds of stories can, and have gotten people FIRED. People have lost jobs because shitty websites and the SJW movement has attacked people for no reason. At first I thought Matti sounded like a douche but now I am questioning the whole story. Maybe he was another guy who got fired because some woman didn't like him.

 

4) She has tried to censor YouTube, Reddit and other sites.

 

5) She is running a fucking scam called "Rebel Jam". She is taking donations for her supposed game jam, but all the donations goes straight to her personal PayPal account. Sorry but I dislike people who steal money, and so should you.

 

6) She has attacked people like TB even though he has been pretty impartial. The simple act of mentioning Zoe and not explicitly defend her can cause her army of SJWs to attack and threaten you. Some indie devs have even been threatened that if they aren't nice to Zoe they will get a hard time becoming a game dev.

 

7) Believe it or not, but journalists should keep their professional and private lives separated. They should be completely impartial and only bring you the facts. For example the reporter who (was he executed or was it just the photographer?) got his head cut off. Do you think he went to that dangerous zone to bring you facts, or to simply spread his predetermined agenda to more people? Journalists have very strict ethical standards, and it's very important that they have. That's important so people can separate opinion from facts when an event happens. That's why countries such as Sweden has very, VERY strict laws to support journalists so that they can write whatever they want as long as they stick to the truth. Just because a section of journalism is corrupt and has been for quite some time does not mean we should turn a blind eye to it. People are getting fired for crying out loud. This is like a certain type of police officers arrest completely innocent people just because their fuck buddy said the person looked weird. If that were to happen I wouldn't go "well shit happens... Let's not talk about it and it might stop, right?".

 

8) She and Phill Fish has faked being doxxed. You should never lie to make yourself look like a victim. They were just doing this to gain sympathy. For another bully example, this is like the bully beating the crap out of the nerdy kid and then when the teachers arrive the bully goes "baww the nerd's dad beat me up yesterday! He touched me in weird places and threatened me! I am just a little kid and he is a big meanie!". Pure fucking bullshit.

 

9) She has actively tried to (and now successfully) stop an organization that encouraged women to develop games. She, among other things, sent her army (this is the Twitter storm they were referring to in the soundcloud link) to attack them because it was "sexist" to make women work for an 8% royalty. Even though the entire game development would have been funded for them, and the other 92% of the profit would have gone to charity, and the fact that (as many Shark Tank lovers such as myself will know) 8% in royalty is pretty standard.

 

 

I might have missed a thing or two. But yeah, I think that's pretty much it why people hate her and think this is news worthy.

By the way, as you can see I have provided you with links which proves all the things I have said are true. This is what happened. It's not just speculations. Dismiss whatever evidence you want, but it won't make it untrue.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

You are not getting it, are you?

 

You cannot bring random papers and say that the one case is a "proven fact". The citation itself needs to be reputable. The key citation you brought was a blog that was created in a wordpress site. Do you know how easy it is to doctor that info? and "thezoepost"? Really? Is that not a giant red flag for credibility? It is funny how you are breaking your own "innocent until proven guilty" clause, and jump straight on the hate bandwagon. You are still using hyperbole as an absolute fact, and you are still being thick-headed about it (A recent pattern of yours, should I add).

 

At this point, I am tired of repeating my points over and over again, because you blindly ignore them for the sake of vitriol. I suggest you to look back at my previous posts, ACTUALLY READ THEM, and then come back to me.

 

I have zero respect for people who pretend to know what they are talking about when in reality they are absolutely clueless; charlatans in short. I've stated this in my status update.

[Misanthrope]

You said the same to me and I proven you wrong, we all need to just add you to the ignore list

*updates ignore list*

[LAwLz]

You are not getting it, are you?

 

You cannot bring random papers and say that the one case is a "proven fact". The citation itself needs to be reputable. The key citation you brought was a blog that was created in a wordpress site. Do you know how easy it is to doctor that info? and "thezoepost"? Really? Is that not a giant red flag for credibility? It is funny how you are breaking your own "innocent until proven guilty" clause, and jump straight on the hate bandwagon. You are still using hyperbole as an absolute fact, and you are still being thick-headed about it (A recent pattern of yours, should I add).

 

At this point, I am tired of repeating my points over and over again, because you blindly ignore them for the sake of vitriol. I suggest to look back at my previous posts, ACTUALLY READ THEM, and then come back to me.

 

I have zero respect for people who pretend to know what they are talking about when in reality they are absolutely clueless; charlatans in short. I've stated this in my status update.

No Gerfaud, you're the one not getting it. These things have been confirmed. For example other Kotaku journalists have confirmed that they had a sexual relationship. She has replied to the allegations saying that what she does on her personal time is irrelevant (and she would have had a point if the other people had kept their personal and private lives separated as well). The other things I linked to are stuff she have said herself. You can just look them up on twitter if you want. You can read the messages the SJWs have posted. You can watch the videos where you see Quinn lying in the same bed as the Kotaku reporter a few weeks before he posted his article supporting her. You can look for articles on the rape (by her own definition) or her attempt to shut down the organization trying to help women.

You keep pointing to one of my sources going "I don't believe that because I think the evidence is faked! Even though big parts of it has been confirmed by for example other writers at Kotaku and nobody has denied any of it even though that would be the first thing an innocent person would do!" and then dismiss all other sources as well.

 

Please stop being so biased and just look at all the facts I have presented. Even IF one of the points I made turns out to have been faked, even single one out of the other 8 points I bought up is enough to flame a person. Stealing money (which has been 100% confirmed, you can look at the PayPal info yourself), censoring people, fake being doxxed and so on. Most of my points I listed have bullet proof evidence behind them. Even the ones you claim are filled with manufactured evidence has been partially confirmed.

 

Just repeatidly saying the evidence is false does not make it false. here is how a debate goes:

Person 1 makes a claim

Person 1 backs that claim up with evidence.

Person 2 disproves that with other evidence <--- This is the step you are at now.

Person 1 backs up his point again with new evidence.

Person 2 backs up his point with new evidence.

 

It doesn't work if person 2 just keeps saying "no you're wrong" without any counter argument.

 

 

You said the same to me and I proven you wrong, we all need to just add you to the ignore list

*updates ignore list*

Please don't ignore people. Even if you don't agree with them on a particular topic they might have something valuable to say on a different topic.

I also think that it's important to be exposed to as many different opinions as possible, no matter how dumb you think they are.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

You said the same to me and I proven you wrong, we all need to just add you to the ignore list

*updates ignore list*

 

No you didn't; don't fool yourself.

 

Your hostility is the cancer of the internet; let that sink in for a minute.

 

-snip-

 

One again, you paid no attention what I said, and repeated the same nonsense that I have debunked a long time ago. Don't spout nonsense about proven facts when you do not understand what credible sources even means.

 

If you want to show something to me, then bring something new.

 

Otherwise my original offer remains: CTFD or GTFO.

[LAwLz]

One again, you paid no attention what I said, and repeated the same nonsense that I have debunked a long time ago. Don't spout nonsense about proven facts when you do not understand what credible sources even means.

 

If you want to show something to me, then bring something new.

 

Otherwise my original offer remains: CTFD or GTFO.

Can you please link to the post where you debunk all the points I made? I must have missed it. Also, is there any evidence that you will accept other than Quinn herself coming over to your house and saying "yes he is 100% correct about everything he said"? My guess is that you would barely accept that, since it could be a look-a-like I hired.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Well, here you go!

 

I'm of TotalBiscuit's mindset here; there is too much false "information" at both sides of the argument to construct a valid conclusion. All we have so far are pre-conceived notions, and nothing more than that.

 

It could be Zoe pulling all the guns, and tarnishing the reputation of many people as collateral damage. While it is indeed immoral, we are talking about a measly one person here. And that person does not even have any political power.

 

But it could also be the internets perfect excuse to denounce feminism as a whole, which i do not approve of. There is a thing called a "vocal minority". It applies to feminism the same way that it does PC elitism.

I despise those people as much as you do, but I would like to point out a small problem:

 

They would not get nearly the attention that they get, without these so called "anti-feminists". The way I see it is that they are trolling, essentially attention-whoring (excuse my language), and by getting comments like "Sarkeesian is a lying bitch!" spreading like wildfire, it is actually a victory for their ulterior motives. To add to that, they can easily use the outrage to "prove their point".

 

So in the grand scheme of things, that kind of argument is going absolutely nowhere unless we STFU about it and let it fade to obscurity. Publicly insulting them harms the cause more than it helps it, as you are only feeding the fire.

That was a tad hostile, wasn't it?

 

I have already talked about these points before, but I will repeat them:

 

1) There is not a single shred of objective information in regards to this controversy. What we have is extremely difficult to find and verify.

 

2) We are talking about one simpleton person, and pulling ALL of that off, even with the "incentives", is remarkably difficult. Not even legal power (which Zoe lacks) can accomplish this task.

 

3) Even if all this was true, we are comparing a vocal minority (a laughably small one at that), and shamelessly branding it across the entire spectrum. I have already said this to a certain friend of ours (multiple times).

 

4) The mere fact that we are talking against such people HELPS their cause. If you look closely at how this is structured, you will realize that it is set up specifically to put the critics at a very awkward situation.

Well, you are such a nice person...

 

I am not defending her in any way shape or form, and if you believe otherwise, then there is something wrong with you! I am simply being realistic about what is out there on the table. My point was that there is so many lies from BOTH pro-feminist and anti-feminist manchildren that there is NOTHING that we can draw from. Please don't tell me that a youtube video and blogs on the internet is considered a viable source of information, because it is not. It makes people draw parallels where they do not exist, which is exactly what happened here. I do not like the "modern feminists" at all, but there is NO REASON to hate them to the extent that you do. As troublesome as Zoe is, we are still talking about ONE SINGLE PERSON that does not even have any political power. Has it ever crossed your mind how difficult it is to have all these events occur under Zoe's hands? I didn't think so! Once you bring us a source of information that actually means something, then we will talk.

 

The general "anti-Sarkeesian" arguments have so many logic holes that it is facepalm worthy. Do not get me started here....

 

At this point, I'm on the side of @ionbasa, @'TheProfosist, TotalBiscuit, and AngryJoe; this is a much bigger argument than it needs to be. It is people like you that give Quinn, Anita and the others a reason to do what they do. They have baited you, and you have fallen for it. It is as simple as that.

Now you are just drawing hyperbolies as "facts". And you are rather a hypocrite for calling them "one-sided", considering that you have not accepted a single merit of their argument, and brushed them off as "typical of modern feminism". Let me repeat: there is no objective information in regards to this controversy. All we have is anecdotes, hyperbole, and hearsay, and that is it. If there is no objective information available, then neither side of the argument have any grounds, which renders the entire debate pointless.

 

Here is what TB says about the delimma in a nutshell (CITATION: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1)

 

Here is the problem, when you criticize people like Quinn, it ends up escalating the drama and you get used as a citation to prove her point. You really want to solve this problem? Then don't speak of it. Let it fade to obscurity. Like I said, a big component of this is a troll bait, that many people (like you) keep falling for. The principle of what they do relies more on an aggressive feedback rather than a passive one. If we, as a whole, are passive about this, then what benefit do they get then for engaging in this activity? The practical answer is absolutely nothing. 

 

Here is one thing I want to make especially clear: the problems that you are citing are not exclusive to anything. It happens EVERYWHERE. But just because this involves "feminism", it puts many people into instant rage mode. When people make a problem out of a trivial circumstance, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE YOURSELF!

 

Here is an advice for you; don't allow this "modern feminism" nonsense to impair your judgement.

Because I disagree with your approach of the problem, that automatically makes me a Quinn supporter? No It doesn't; I have my own Issues with her side of the story. What I am against, however, is instant ad hominem upon the news breaking, before any solid evidence is out on the table. Considering the nature of the controversy, literally a case of he-said she-said, that is unlikely to ever happen, and for that reason, I refuse to take either side of the discussion. I do not care which side you take. If you support Zoe Quinn Apple-style, then I will call you out. If you hate her to the teeth, then I will still call you out. 

 

Because of the "proven" (not really) case of Kotaku taking bribes to be on Quinn's side, that makes the entire format biased? On the specific case, it is stereotyping based on miscommunication. On the general basis, it is a statement of the obvious.

 

On your claim of getting shot down by feminazis, the general reality is the exact opposite. A lot of people would like to speak their minds about the incoherence of the complaints against Anita and similar people, but they end up not saying anything, out of fear of confronting vile temper tantrums and have their privacy/security compromised by people who have nothing better to do. As you can tell, this does not hold me back.

Please define "proper understanding"; is it based on what some vocal group thinks, or is it based on ourselves actually seeing through the sheep skin?

 

I have already talked about this, Albert Einstein! If you base your facts from arbitrary sources, THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM OBJECTIVE. It is hearsay more than anything else. Notice how that Kotaku article actually explains things contradicting your beliefs, but you quickly jump on the "Quinn supporter" assumption. I'm much more concerned about the response to the article that the article itself. That was seriously pathetic!

 

For the love of god, this has been mentioned a million times already; the more you "speak out", the more fuel gets added to the fire, and the more that they use it to prove themselves. If you ignore them, they will lose motivation for their actions (assuming malicious intent, which you have failed to prove), and find something else. Did you miss this? Do I have to repeat this YET AGAIN??

 

On a general note, you are gravely underestimating how difficult it is for ALL of these actions to occur. And yet you all jump to accusing someone believing it to be a piece of cake action.

 

You cannot go around dictating who is right or wrong. TotalBiscuit even talked about this in his youtube podcasts; He is not even able to talk about feminism, as there are too many crazy people "who needs something to masturbate to". There is also Angry Joe who, like me, believes that the general "feminism" controversy is blown horribly out of proportion ["Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2013!", number 3, 24:31]. I have a perspective that is different from the apparent majority; deal with it!

 

And you call ME thick-headed... what a joke!

Just so you will be happy about it, I DID read the citations. Did it change my point? Not really. If anything, it has proven my original suspicion of this being a wide-scale catfight. Listen, there are faults in Zoe's reasoning, I get it (again, I have mentioned this from the get-go, but you willingly bypassed it), but the other side of the argument is EQUALLY GUILTY of this same problem. So unless you actually bring me some formal papers to prove the controversy, your arguments are nothing more than empty vitriol. 

 

Thank you for elaborating on what I said. That is my point, there is too much bickering from both sides to draw the truth out. Right now, it is a very messy stalemate. Do I support Quinn? Absolutely not! Does "her ex" and the hate army get a green pass for this? BLOODY HELL NO!

 

You have perfectly explained how these "anti-Quinn", "anti-Sarkeesian" or whatever, arguments do not hold any ground at all.

This is why I take the "neither" side, but that position apparently does not exist, according to some people. This binary mentality of "If you don't hate <something> to the teeth, that automatically means that you worship it" gets on my nerves. It is already happening to Apple, the console platforms, and the convolution in the mideast. I do not want this to spread to more petty matters.

 

What were you saying again?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Can you please link to the post where you debunk all the points I made? I must have missed it. Also, is there any evidence that you will accept other than Quinn herself coming over to your house and saying "yes he is 100% correct about everything he said"? My guess is that you would barely accept that, since it could be a look-a-like I hired.

 

Read above comment.

 

And also, you have recently made a rather bold claim about me having no credibility. You really should not say that, considering that you yourself have been called out several times for bringing false "facts" and going into arbitrary conclusions.

[Mooshi]

Now that I think about it, the SJW types are the bigger problem vs Zoe. Quinn is a harlot, but the ones backing her up are the bigger issue. Those are the ones fueling the flames through censorship and biased journalism. Kinda like how Bieber is annoying, but his fans several times more so.

I say we do what /v/ originally did and support female devs who aren't insane feminists. While their reason was spite, LTT could support for positive reasons instead of obsessing over Zoe.

What do you guys say, truce? We don't need to shit all over the place, we can do something that actually matters.

[kamiyo]

No you didn't; don't fool yourself.

 

Your hostility is the cancer of the internet; let that sink in for a minute.

 

 

One again, you paid no attention what I said, and repeated the same nonsense that I have debunked a long time ago. Don't spout nonsense about proven facts when you do not understand what credible sources even means.

 

If you want to show something to me, then bring something new.

 

Otherwise my original offer remains: CTFD or GTFO.

I've never once facepalmed as hard as I just did. You're even more hostile than anyone here.

I've tried hard to stay out of this discussion, but your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You're saying no one reads your posts, but based on the way you respond, it doesn't seem like you read anyone else's post either. Let's tone it down a notch. You're telling everyone else to CTFD yet it sure as hell seems like you aren't doing the same.

While I'm taking no side in this argument, I hardly believe you are doing the same, not with the tone of your responses as well as the way you word them. You're saying to let this die out and to not respond. You aren't helping. You need to calm down, take a much less aggressive tone, and maybe then someone might actually listen to you. I'm personally having hard time listening to anything you say, not with your responses in the past few pages.

[LAwLz]

Read above comment.

I'll reply to it tomorrow (it's 2 AM in Sweden right now). Just wanted to reply to this post quickly before going to bed.

 

 

And also, you have recently made a rather bold claim about me having no credibility. You really should not say that, considering that you yourself have been called out several times for bringing false "facts" and going into arbitrary conclusions.

I drew a parallel between your comment that "no amount of evidence will make me change my mind" and religion. It clearly shows that you are not being objective regarding this issue. If you say that you won't change your mind no matter what, then yes you do lose your credibility. That is the very definition of being close minded.

I haven't brought up any false facts either but I'll get to that tomorrow. The only one calling me out on it is you by the way.

 

Edit: in before the "no you're the close minded one!" comment. I am open minded. It's just that one side has a ton of evidence to support them while the other is trying to censor the other side from even talking about it. I am totally willing to change my mind if new evidence surfaces which proves that Quinn and Kotaku are innocent. Like I said before though, some of the things have bullet proof evidence (such as the Rebel Jam PayPal being her personal account and she therefore can't know how much money is for Rebel Jam and how much she can put in her own pockets) so even if she is innocent on some of the points, she won't be innocent on all of them.

The difference between you and me is that you are dismissing evidence and saying "no matter what evidence you show me, I won't change my mind".

I am saying "I am willing to change my mind on some parts of the story, but since we have 100% confirmed evidence to support other parts I am not willing to forgive her fully".

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Now that I think about it, the SJW types are the bigger problem vs Zoe. Quinn is a harlot, but the ones backing her up are the bigger issue. Those are the ones fueling the flames through censorship and biased journalism. Kinda like how Bieber is annoying, but his fans several times more so.

 

I do not disagree with that. However, I believe that the "SJW" classification goes both ways. There are people who see Zoe as a deity, and there are people who think that they are superheros by denouncing feminism. It is unfortunate that we, the sensible people, keep getting forced into the tug of war, as is seen here.

 

 

I say we do what /v/ originally did and support female devs who aren't insane feminists. While their reason was spite, LTT could support for positive reasons instead of obsessing over Zoe.

 

Yea, sure, why not?

 

 

What do you guys say, truce? We don't need to shit all over the place, we can do something that actually matters.

 

Since I am neutral, I'm all for it. However, this is very reliant on the people from both sides, the pro and the anti, to actually accept that the are fighting over nothing, and move on.

 

So this is response pending ATM.

[Misanthrope]

Please don't ignore people. Even if you don't agree with them on a particular topic they might have something valuable to say on a different topic.

I also think that it's important to be exposed to as many different opinions as possible, no matter how dumb you think they are.

My time is too valuable to be spent on people that are obvious trolls or do not get past circular logic and just clog discussions with verbose and non-arguments.

You can consider it my loss, but I have no reason to be patient or give second chances

[LAwLz]

I'm of TotalBiscuit's mindset here; there is too much false "information" at both sides of the argument to construct a valid conclusion. All we have so far are pre-conceived notions, and nothing more than that.

 

It could be Zoe pulling all the guns, and tarnishing the reputation of many people as collateral damage. While it is indeed immoral, we are talking about a measly one person here. And that person does not even have any political power.

 

But it could also be the internets perfect excuse to denounce feminism as a whole, which i do not approve of. There is a thing called a "vocal minority". It applies to feminism the same way that it does PC elitism.

But we don't just have preconceived notions. Didn't you follow the links I posted? Like I've said before and I will say again, quite a lot of the evidence is bullet proof and/or has been confirmed by for example other Kotaku writers. Even IF some of it is false you can't just ignore the rest of the arguments (like you're doing now).

She does have political power because she isn't just one person. she is supported by people like Phill Fish  and Anita. She has an entire army of people willing to attack anyone she points her finger towards. I don't think you realize how much power someone in her position got. I mean, just look at all the censorship she has undeniably managed to pull off. She is not just "one person" when she is getting help from all of her high profile friends and an army of mindless drones. So your whole "she doesn't have any power because she is just one person" is pure bullshit and you know it.

The Internet is not against feminism. It is again pseudo feminism, or "tumblr feminism" or "modern feminism". Feminism is fine. It's when you manipulate journalists to spread extremist propaganda and manages to harm innocent people (by for example getting them fired) you become hated. It's not all women that are getting hated, it's horribly mean and evil people that are getting hated.

 

 

I despise those people as much as you do, but I would like to point out a small problem:

 

They would not get nearly the attention that they get, without these so called "anti-feminists". The way I see it is that they are trolling, essentially attention-whoring (excuse my language), and by getting comments like "Sarkeesian is a lying bitch!" spreading like wildfire, it is actually a victory for their ulterior motives. To add to that, they can easily use the outrage to "prove their point".

 

So in the grand scheme of things, that kind of argument is going absolutely nowhere unless we STFU about it and let it fade to obscurity. Publicly insulting them harms the cause more than it helps it, as you are only feeding the fire.

The problem is that you can't just turn a blind eye either. I am going to bring up donglegate again because it clearly illustrates how "she is just one person" is bullshit, and how the problem won't go away if we ignore it.

First of all, this clearly illustrates that 1 person, such as Adria Richards in my example does have a big amount of power. She wasn't really hard of before the incident and yet she had enough power, because of other "feminists" spreading her message and sending their legion of blind social justice warriors after them. By the way, they did this without any evidence mind you. For all we know, she might just have taken a picture of two guys sitting quietly behind her and then made the entire "forking repos" up. Yet they one of them got fired.

Secondly, the anti-feminism movement wasn't really doing anything (compared to what the SJW movement was doing) regarding the story until after one of them got fired. I will repeat that again just so you understand. When nobody did anything and let the SJW army run amok, a person lost their jobs.

Like I said before, I think of these kinds of feminists as abusive police in the police force. Not all cops are bad, but you can't just say "just ignore the bad ones and they will go away". They won't go away if they can continue to abuse their power.

So no, I completely disagree with your "just ignore them" idea. Ignoring a bully does not make them go away, especially not if it is going around getting people fired.

 

 

That was a tad hostile, wasn't it?

 

I have already talked about these points before, but I will repeat them:

 

1) There is not a single shred of objective information in regards to this controversy. What we have is extremely difficult to find and verify.

 

2) We are talking about one simpleton person, and pulling ALL of that off, even with the "incentives", is remarkably difficult. Not even legal power (which Zoe lacks) can accomplish this task.

 

3) Even if all this was true, we are comparing a vocal minority (a laughably small one at that), and shamelessly branding it across the entire spectrum. I have already said this to a certain friend of ours (multiple times).

 

4) The mere fact that we are talking against such people HELPS their cause. If you look closely at how this is structured, you will realize that it is set up specifically to put the critics at a very awkward situation.

1) We got tons of objective information. I have linked to a lot of it. You only seem to focus on "did she or did she not have sex with them?" which isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that she is getting special treatment. The cause of the special treatment doesn't really matter. If I had photographic evidence of them in the act I would gladly send it to you, but I doubt anyone has that. But again, what we do have solid evidence for is more than enough reasons to hate her.

 

2) I have already explained how that is bullshit. She does have quite a lot of power because of her friends and people willing to not only defend her, but attack anyone who doesn't defend Zoe.

 

3) And that matters to this conversation, how? I have already called myself a feminist in this thread (a true feminist, not a "baww I want more female characters in video games because otherwise I am so oppressed! Also any woman dying in a video game is sexist!"). That's why I am making a distinction between real feminists (which I simply call "feminist") and the pseudo/thumblr/SJW/Internet feminists.

 

4) I have already explained this in the previous section of the post. Ignoring a bully will not make it go away. SJWs already has enough power to cause harm without any extra publicity from the opposing side. Another example of this is TFYC's campaign. They have gotten a lot more donations because of the outrage against Zoe, so even IF it has helped Zoe it has also helped legitimately good causes.

 

 

Well, you are such a nice person...

 

I am not defending her in any way shape or form, and if you believe otherwise, then there is something wrong with you! I am simply being realistic about what is out there on the table. My point was that there is so many lies from BOTH pro-feminist and anti-feminist manchildren that there is NOTHING that we can draw from. Please don't tell me that a youtube video and blogs on the internet is considered a viable source of information, because it is not. It makes people draw parallels where they do not exist, which is exactly what happened here. I do not like the "modern feminists" at all, but there is NO REASON to hate them to the extent that you do. As troublesome as Zoe is, we are still talking about ONE SINGLE PERSON that does not even have any political power. Has it ever crossed your mind how difficult it is to have all these events occur under Zoe's hands? I didn't think so! Once you bring us a source of information that actually means something, then we will talk.

 

The general "anti-Sarkeesian" arguments have so many logic holes that it is facepalm worthy. Do not get me started here....

 

At this point, I'm on the side of @ionbasa, @'TheProfosist, TotalBiscuit, and AngryJoe; this is a much bigger argument than it needs to be. It is people like you that give Quinn, Anita and the others a reason to do what they do. They have baited you, and you have fallen for it. It is as simple as that.

I would say you are defending her. You are telling people to not talk about her, which is exactly what she want. She is clearly guilty of one or more things she is being accused of, and you don't want anyone to mention those things. It's like standing in the way of a cop trying to chase after a thief and telling the cop "if we don't talk about this it will go away. We don't want to make the thief famous, right?". That's an analogy by the way, so please don't come back saying "baww the anti-feminist movement is not the Internet police!".

 

Sure there might be many lies, but again, we have evidence for it. When I look at you I don't see someone who is looking for reliable sources. I am seeing someone who discards evidence which doesn't support your predefined belief. You have even admitted that yourself when you said that no evidence can make you change your mind. I'm not sure if you're doing it consciously or not, but you are probably the most biased person in the entire thread.

I have provided you with plenty of evidence that "means something" but you keep ignoring it.

 

 

The rest of your post just seems to be saying the same thing over and over and I don't feel like repeating myself like 10 times in a single post.

[ZeroBreaker]

snip

 

The rest of your post just seems to be saying the same thing over and over

 

snip

 

inb4 his next post is just him repeating himself over and over

[Misanthrope]

I'll be damned, LaWlz just said "feminism is fine" This is what happens when you don't listen to me and keep arguing in circles

[LAwLz]

I'll be damned, LaWlz just said "feminism is fine" This is what happens when you don't listen to me and keep arguing in circles

I've always been fine with real feminists. I think everyone should be treated equally (as much as possible and as long as it's reasonable) no matter gender, sexual orientation, race etc. Again, I am a feminist myself.

That's the exact same reason as to why I dislike the pseudo feminists though, because they don't want equal treatment. They want special treatment, and they often use things like race or gender as ad hominem attacks, for example "you're not allowed to comment on this because you are a straight white male". I am strongly against sexism and that's why I am against this kind of bullshit.

Zoe is a terrible person no matter her gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever is. I feel the same way about Anita by the way.

[ZeroBreaker]

Another view on the issue, this time from the guy who got a DMCA from zoe on the use of a publicly available image while talking about the issue:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV_8RHSyS14

 

I don't really like RTU, he can be a bit thickheaded at times, he made an earlier video showing he was just going along with gaming media, but props to him for showing the other side of the story. i.e. the whole truth.

[Scionyde]

Another view on the issue, this time from the guy who got a DMCA from zoe on the use of a publicly available image while talking about the issue:

 

I don't really like RTU, he can be a bit thickheaded at times, he made an earlier video showing he was just going along with gaming media, but props to him for showing the other side of the story. i.e. the whole truth.

 

RTU got hit with a DMCA complaint for one of his vids too? (Not that I'm a huge fan of his either)