I withdraw my support for RPS and eat a large slice of humble pie

[Huw the Poo]

Back to one of Huw's key points - there's no reason to completely shut down the debate on this, if people can manage to keep it civil.

I want this so desperately.  It's what the situation needs.  It's true that some of the SJW crowd have been taking some hateful flak (although far less than they've been giving out in my opinion (doxxing a 10-year-old boy and threatening to kill him, anyone?)), but look what happens when people like TotalBiscuit and JonTron actually say calm, reasonable things online.  Torrents of abuse and yet more accusations of "misogyny" for daring to question Zoe Quinn's motives.

I'm getting really weary of the whole thing now.

[Huw the Poo]

Seems like some gaming websites still have some hairs left on their balls

See?  This is proper reporting.  This is how it should be done.  They aren't getting their hands dirty or anything, but at least they're reporting the facts and daring to show that not everyone has fallen for Zoe Quinn's bullshit.  I don't know how sites like RPS can refuse to even mention it and still call themselves gaming news outlets.

[Rayfer]

it sounds a lot like the extremists on both sides or just shouting at each other, and no one is bothering to listen in the middle anywhere

That is as perfect a summation of politics as I have EVER seen!

Wow, do you ever have that right.  A huge +1.

[Arctic Blast]

Back to one of Huw's key points - there's no reason to completely shut down the debate on this, if people can manage to keep it civil.  As long as you're not insulting each other or giving out personal info (aka "doxxing") or otherwise trolling with the sole point of fanning the flames, there's no reason not to just talk about both sides, or all the different sides in this case.

Well, there you go. A bunch of warmongering grogs are apparently the only ones capable of having a reasonable discussion about this. It's too perfect.  ;D

Not that I'm surprised, really. This group is actually capable of a mature conversation that doesn't turn into dribbling nonsense from extremes.

[mirth]

This group is actually capable of a mature conversation that doesn't turn into dribbling nonsense from extremes.

It is?! Where's the special part of the forums we've been keeping those kind of discussions?  :P

[GDS_Starfury]

we are VERY serious about bewbays!

[panzerde]

Two thoughts this morning:

Regardless of what you may think of her opinions about video games, this is simply beyond the pale: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats

There is nothing in what this person says that is justification for more than a statement of "I disagree with that."  Anyone who feels compelled to wage these sorts of harassment and threat campaigns against another person online is mentally ill.

Second: This environment is why in most places it's simply impossible to have any sort of discussion online. There are a lot of people with Internet access with a very tenuous grasp of reality.

Edit: And to illustrate that this is a human problem and not just a problem women face: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/chef-pledges-better-police-open-source-community-engineer-resigns-following-death-threats/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+geekwire+%28GeekWire%29

[Huw the Poo]

Regardless of what you may think of her opinions about video games, this is simply beyond the pale: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats

Yep, absolutely - assuming the threats were real, of course - and before you roll your eyes, her ally Zoe Quinn fabricated at least two attacks on herself.  But I agree with the general point, that extreme response on either side solves nothing, and it's one of my larger bugbears with this whole situation.

Second: This environment is why in most places it's simply impossible to have any sort of discussion online. There are a lot of people with Internet access with a very tenuous grasp of reality.

Agreed also.  I've been participating in the argument in more public spheres than this one using pseudonyms for this very reason.  Nobody should have to do that.

[MengJiao]

Back to one of Huw's key points - there's no reason to completely shut down the debate on this, if people can manage to keep it civil.  As long as you're not insulting each other or giving out personal info (aka "doxxing") or otherwise trolling with the sole point of fanning the flames, there's no reason not to just talk about both sides, or all the different sides in this case.

Well, there you go. A bunch of warmongering grogs are apparently the only ones capable of having a reasonable discussion about this. It's too perfect.  ;D

  I was thinking about how warmongering forces you to have some sense of proportion and to recognize how far (luckily) fantasies are from reality.  Moreover, if somebody asks you to sort of "explain your interest" in blowing things up -- the very first thing you recognize is that it is kind of infantile and irrational -- and yet in the real world real things get blown up (perhaps in infantile and irrational ways even there).

[Boggit]

^^ +1. That's irony for you. :) ::)

[Father Ted]

I've been participating in the argument in more public spheres than this one using pseudonyms for this very reason.  Nobody should have to do that.

Not a personal thing Huw, but isn't the ability to use pseudonyms one of the accelerants of these out-of-control spite-fests?

[Huw the Poo]

I've been participating in the argument in more public spheres than this one using pseudonyms for this very reason.  Nobody should have to do that.

Not a personal thing Huw, but isn't the ability to use pseudonyms one of the accelerants of these out-of-control spite-fests?

It can be.  You could also argue that it's an equaliser.  Take 4chan; that's a community far more inclusive than people would have you believe.  They actually oppose usernames because what you say is more important than who you are, thus everyone is treated equally.

Anyway, in this particular case, people are having nasty things happen to them when their identities - real life identities - are revealed, so in this case, I think it would be insane not to use a pseudonym.

[Nefaro]

Seems like some gaming websites still have some hairs left on their balls

See?  This is proper reporting.  This is how it should be done.  They aren't getting their hands dirty or anything, but at least they're reporting the facts and daring to show that not everyone has fallen for Zoe Quinn's bullshit.  I don't know how sites like RPS can refuse to even mention it and still call themselves gaming news outlets.

I hope 4Chan lampoons the nonsense in the usual vulgar ways.  I'm rooting for the 3rd party malcontents.  ;)

[Huw the Poo]

I hope 4Chan lampoons the nonsense in the usual vulgar ways.  I'm rooting for the 3rd party malcontents.  ;)

They're actually trying to take the moral high ground on this one, but yeah, plans are underway. ;)

I've been spending a lot of time on 4chan lately and I have to admit I really like it there.  It's an insanely huge community; you can't tar them all with the same brush because they're far too diverse.  Hell, even a lot of the individual boards there don't get on with each other.  4chan definitely does not speak with one voice, but activist groups do spring up there from time to time.

As I said in my response to Father Ted, everyone is treated equally there and all that counts is what you say.  It's a much better community than it's given credit for.

[Huw the Poo]

Someone has posted an absolutely fantastic open letter to gaming journalists.  If you're even remotely interested in the current saga, or care at all about games journalism, it's a must read.  It's long but every word is a gem.  The author explains exactly why gamers are pissed off with gaming journalists right now and calls them out on various shitty things they've done, not just now but over the last few years.

He also explains, better than I did up-thread, why it's hypocritical that they refuse to be critical of Anita Sarkeesian, i.e. they fought Jack Thompson (remember him?) for saying violence in games leads to violence in real life but refuse to criticise Sarkeesian for saying the exact same thing about sexism.