Censorship? There is no censorship!

Found the perfect song for Zoe Quinn.



Also, the the post above me. I love how everybody says it so bravely (or whatever you could call the use of that fuckin word) but...

Alright, where I live in the US, Albuquerque New Mexico, people would get the fuck beat out of them for that here if they use it in the wrong way. I know Yamu knows exactly what I'm talking about, because not only is he in the same city but he is in a neighborhood with we call the "Warzone", or to the tweakers that roam the land, the "Zone". I myself am in the North Valley (fuckin' Northsiders...). But I know that, IRL where I am at, people would be completely different.

I remember when I was a kid, my dad had a best friend who was black, his name was Clarence. One day, I was about eight years old, I said the word "nigga". Everybody just got silent right away. I didn't know what the fuck I'd just said. But Clarence looked at me, and told me "come here!" I was in Las Vegas Nevada at the time, and I knew Clarence. My dad had already told him he had the right to kick my ass if I acted up, so at that moment I was sure I was getting my ass kicked. But he took me into the bathroom. We stood there before the mirror. He pointed at me and told me "what do you see". I remember telling him "Myself..." then quickly correcting myself, "No! My reflection". He laughed, and said, "You know what I see?" I asked him "What?" He told me "I see a nigga." I didn't understand what he meant. He told me "I'm a nigga, your a nigga, you're dad's a nigga, we're all nigga's. The true meaning of the word is a person, and so long as you don't use it in any other way there is no wrong in what you're doing. We're all people, there's nothing different about any of us. We're all niggas".

From that moment on, any racism that could have ever possibly manifested in me died out. I understood exactly what he said. Same reason I don't get offended when comedians use so called "racist jokes". Their not meant to be racist, their meant to be fuckin jokes. If that comedian is actually racist, people would figure it out sooner or later and he/she would get what was coming to them. But comedians like Dave Chappelle, Ari Shaffir (look him up as "The Amazing Racist") or George Lopez and their jokes don't bother me one bit.

Until people like Sander, Tagz, or anyone with the same mindset figures that out, this world will always be fucked up. Filled with the hate that they so eagerly seek to expose, even when it isn't there. But when it comes to the word itself; it depends how you use it and what you mean it as, and that's when it becomes offensive. Everyone of us here are niggas by my philosophy, and no one will ever shake that from me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The great tragedy of "those types" who don't realize they need to stop seeing these problems is that it's the very idea of exclusivity and exception and difference and identifying castes and groups that leads to all these problems they claim to want to do away with. They're creating the problem they think they're trying to solve. Not to say that they're the reason it exists, far from it. But they're absolutely not helping it at all.

There's certain people, in my life, much like your Clarence did for you, either gave me a special insight that I keep to this day, OR helped shape an idea I already had, but could not form into words. One friend told me about his upbringing with foster parents, because his biological father was just some junky who screwed his mother and had nothing to do with his life. He told me about meeting his father for the first time when he was an adult, and his father was in prison, and how he resented carrying his father's name (he was a Jr.) because he owed everything to his foster family. I'd always held a belief that blood meant nothing, and saying that always seemed to incense my family, when I meant no offense by it at all. But he said a similar philosophy in a wonderful way that I've held on to this day: "I loved my daddy, I hated my father. Any man can be a 'father'. All you gotta do is fuck a woman and leave. Hell, you don't even have to go that far! But it takes WORK to be a 'daddy'. It takes time, dedication, love, and sacrifice to become a 'daddy'. You gotta be there for your kids, watch em grow up, every step of the way. That's a 'daddy'! All you gotta do to be a 'father' is donate your sperm."

Bit tangential, I know, but that story about Clarence reminded me of that story my friend told me. =)
 
Now here's an interesting story that exposes the lack of standards at kotaku:
ed21e6baa5.png
Original Article: https://archive.today/FeqWu

Also, I think demands really isn't too strong a word for all too many feminists in games:
http://i.imgur.com/WbySwOa.png
http://i.imgur.com/SfFDR11.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Y4CulNs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fnBrPfs.png
http://i.imgur.com/vDLdhhT.png
http://i.imgur.com/XWfHUQb.png
http://i.imgur.com/l2CnQYh.png
http://i.imgur.com/XRDQ5AA.png
http://i.imgur.com/MZ4mAZQ.png
http://i.imgur.com/xFBJwQz.png
http://i.imgur.com/wyOAkId.png
http://i.imgur.com/E81DlDR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/S3J1sgx.png
http://i.imgur.com/14kR6kV.png
http://i.imgur.com/RM6aLMP.png
http://i.imgur.com/Z1v8JHH.jpg
- http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-gd-trolls-inside.90469/page-742#post-3627620
 
Last edited:
you know, every time i hear about people complaining about some part of a game that made them uncomfortable or offended them, it reminds me of that infamous room in ultima 4.

what was the difference? he had many upon many people telling him to just change it, no big deal. even his own family.

he took a stand and said no.
 
Even back in the nineties/eighties there was pressure to be politically correct, Mr. Garriot had this to say on the matter:

Richard Garriot said:
"So you see the children and you want to save them", Garriott explains, "but when you find a way to open the jail cells, they come out and start attacking you.

"Well, I thought, that is an interesting little problem, isn't it? Because I knew darned well that the game doesn't care if you kill them or whether you walk away. It didn't matter, but I knew it would bring up a psychological image in your mind, an image that was in my mind - and any conflict you bring up in anybody's mind is beneficial. It means a person has to think about it.

"Personally, I didn't care how they resolved it, so I put it in. I was really pleased with myself. However, one of the playtesters in the New Hampshire office found that room. He was a religious fundamentalist and was immediately outraged - he thought it was encouraging child abuse. Well, Robert was outraged. He called me up and said, "Richard, Richard, how could you consider putting something like that in your game?" I told him he had it all wrong. I mean, he'd interpreted it as it said in the letter, that the only way you can win the game is to slaughter the children in that room. I am telling him, first of all, most people aren't going to see that room, because you don't see every dungeon room, and secondly, when you walk in the room, you don't have to let them out. And third, you don't have to kill them.

"If you were that bent out of shape about killing them - which is the easiest way to get out of the room - you could charm them and make them walk out of the room yourself. You could put them to sleep and walk out of the room. You could do any number of things, but the point is that you didn't have to kill them. Admittedly, nine out of ten people who find the kids screaming out around their feet are going to kill them - but you don't have to kill children to win the game, so there's a big difference. Robert still thought I had to remove them from the game, and he got my parents involved. They called and said, "Richard, how can you consider doing this?" And they were saying, "Just remove this, it is just a little room, why are you bothering to fight for this so much?"

"And I said, because you guys are missing the point. You are now trying to tell me what I can do artistically - about something that is, in my opinion, not the issue you think it is. If it was something explicitly sexist or explicitly racist or promoting child abuse, I could stand being censored. But if it is something that provoked an emotional response from one individual, I say I have proven the success of the room. The fact that you guys are fighting me over this makes me even more sure I should not remove that room from the game."

Ït's no wonder guys like this make games like ultima vii, and the social justice indie scene makes games like Gone Home, or that one where it's just Jeff Goldblum or whoever's face, or that game where you literally play as a mountain. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Until people like Sander, Tagz, or anyone with the same mindset figures that out, this world will always be fucked up.
You're right in the sense that people can use those words without malicious intent. But you're wrong in that communication and racism do not rely on what people intend to do, only on what actually happens.

This CNN article explains this point really well. Key paragraph:
"When some whites talk about racism, they think it's only personal -- what one person says or does to another. But many minorities and people who study race say racism can be impersonal, calculating, devoid of malice -- such as Michael Corleone's approach to power.
"The first thing we must stop doing is making racism a personal thing and understand that it is a system of advantage based on race," says Doreen E. Loury, director of the Pan African Studies program at Arcadia University, near Philadelphia."

Racism and sexism don't exist because people are evil. They exist because society as a whole functions in a certain way. And willfully refusing to recognize that, the way SnapSlav advocates, is not going to fix anything.
 
You keep saying "maybe you should read X, which explains it." As though the only barrier between us agreeing is our understanding of it. That to me comes off as condescending. Can you grasp the idea, that it is possible for someone to simply not agree with you?

I also want to say that if you think you are making a new point with each of these clarifications, that's not what I see. I only see you making the same point on racism/sexism over and over again. "yeah but what about the context/culture/society/insert other word for big picture I see but you don't ergo allow me to save you from your ignorance." "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." is the definition of what?

Racism and sexism don't exist because people are evil. They exist because society as a whole functions in a certain way.

SHEILA: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey the parents
They just want to fart and curse!

SHARON: Should we blame the government?

LIANE: Or blame society?

STUART/GERALD/RANDY: Or should we blame the images on TV?

OalTIMv.jpg
 
Last edited:
Because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the concepts I keep talking about. No, this is not a case of you disagreeing with them: the form and content of your arguments show a fundamental failure to understand what is I've actually been talking about. Just as your 'rebuttals' of feminism fail to actually understand those concepts.

And that dumbass image you just posted is yet another example: a critique is not a call for censorship. Trying to push through laws that ban violent video games is in no way, shape, or form the same as critiquing the content of video games.

Hell, the fact that you think that South Park quote is actually applicable demonstrates that you genuinely do not understand the argument being made.
 
sander, going back to the GS wage study, i am still waiting for an answer.

women received pay raises more frequently than men which are awarded solely on employment duration

women received promotions more frequently than men which women are more favored

white women made 2.9% less than men in the same job code after education/hire duration

minority women made 5.1% less than men in the same job code after education/hire duration


explain how this happens. ( sexism and misogyny and racism are not factors )
 
Akratus is right. You simply cannot take the fact that people just simply disagree with you. You push it off as we don't understand your position, or we're to ignorant to understand. Well, we do understand your position in the matter, as a matter of fact we've been understanding it for two threads and over forty pages already.

You run this argument in circles because you refuse to accept that we just don't agree with you. You've basically said anyone that doesn't agree with me is either A) ignorant/racist/sexist, B) is not understanding the argument, or C) We're just plain wrong.

You're fanatical, and intolerant of any other opinion. You will never understand that both sides of the coin have something to offer. Both are traits I cannot admire. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person, we've all got our faults, but I'm just saying.
 
Akratus is right. You simply cannot take the fact that people just simply disagree with you. You push it off as we don't understand your position, or we're to ignorant to understand. Well, we do understand your position in the matter, as a matter of fact we've been understanding it for two threads and over forty pages already.


You run this argument in circles because you refuse to accept that we just don't agree with you. You've basically said anyone that doesn't agree with me is either A) ignorant/racist/sexist, B) is not understanding the argument, or C) We're just plain wrong.


You're fanatical, and intolerant of any other opinion. You will never understand that both sides of the coin have something to offer. Both are traits I cannot admire. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person, we've all got our faults, but I'm just saying.


When you and Akratus repeatedly prove that you have no idea what theses comprise modern feminist thought, instead relying on whatever straw men you or people who hate feminism cook up, that's the only conclusion that comes up. Your ignorance has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout both threads, made worse by the fact that while Akratus at least puts in some effort to explain his position and dredge up more or less related links, your contributions typically boil down to non sequiturs or, as the quoted post shows, ad hominems.


Fact is, neither Sander nor I explicitly called you sexist or racist. We called you ignorant, because that's what you are, and the content of your posts as being prejudiced. The issue is with the content, not you. Yet despite that, you see fit to attack me and Sander.


Why is that? Likely because you can offer no counter argument that stands on his own. Sander backs his arguments with studies, lots of studies spanning multiple decades, documented real life examples, I do research to deconstruct silly image memes. Your best contribution is an anecdote about a guy named Clarence and how shutting out problems fixes the world.
 
explain how this happens. ( sexism and misogyny and racism are not factors )
In the broad sense, sexism and racism are exactly why that happens. As I've explained.

@BigBoss: I specifically said Akratus doesn't understand the argument. Because he genuinely doesn't. Not even after 80 pages. I wasn't talking about you, nor about SnapSlav. I think you do understand it, but disagree. I get where you're both coming from, although I think you're wrong about the implications of the argument.
 
Akratus is right. You simply cannot take the fact that people just simply disagree with you. You push it off as we don't understand your position, or we're to ignorant to understand. Well, we do understand your position in the matter, as a matter of fact we've been understanding it for two threads and over forty pages already.


You run this argument in circles because you refuse to accept that we just don't agree with you. You've basically said anyone that doesn't agree with me is either A) ignorant/racist/sexist, B) is not understanding the argument, or C) We're just plain wrong.


You're fanatical, and intolerant of any other opinion. You will never understand that both sides of the coin have something to offer. Both are traits I cannot admire. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person, we've all got our faults, but I'm just saying.


When you and Akratus repeatedly prove that you have no idea what theses comprise modern feminist thought, instead relying on whatever straw men you or people who hate feminism cook up, that's the only conclusion that comes up. Your ignorance has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout both threads, made worse by the fact that while Akratus at least puts in some effort to explain his position and dredge up more or less related links, your contributions typically boil down to non sequiturs or, as the quoted post shows, ad hominems.


Fact is, neither Sander nor I explicitly called you sexist or racist. We called you ignorant, because that's what you are, and the content of your posts as being prejudiced. The issue is with the content, not you. Yet despite that, you see fit to attack me and Sander.


Why is that? Likely because you can offer no counter argument that stands on his own. Sander backs his arguments with studies, lots of studies spanning multiple decades, documented real life examples, I do research to deconstruct silly image memes. Your best contribution is an anecdote about a guy named Clarence and how shutting out problems fixes the world.

Again we're obviously getting no where. I don't have to do any research or put up any evidence because Akratus and sometimes WesDude among have already said everything I would wish to say, and posted his own "evidence" as you like to call it. I'm not going to waste time finding links for you that detail what Akratus has already posted when you're just going to drag the conversation around in circles again, by attempting to "debunk" whatever links or pictures I post by basically saying the same damn thing you've already said hundreds of times, just in different words. Akratus has the will and energy to fight with you even though you take him for a ride over and over again, I don't. It's that kind of people though that keep GamerGate alive, and it's those kind of people which you hate most because they offer a voice for what the rest of us are feeling. Historical figures have done this all the time. What you just told me, is basically like saying "at least Ghadi or Martin Luther King JR. took the time to offer evidence and insight on the matters. The rest of you who are for the same cause just stood by with your "opinions" like ignorant people".

I tried to put up an argument against you when this first started but realized it was futile. There's no winning against fanatics. I've said time and time again that I completely understand your side and agree their are benefits to Second/Third Wave Feminism. You have even so much as acknowledge the fact that Akratus and the rest of GamerGate may possibly have something to offer to the matter at hand, even if it is in the slightest way.

So, like others, I simply offer my own opinion on the subject from time to time. But because I don't feel up an entire post with studies taken from a five minute Google search or a feminist website you frequent (or GamerGate in my position), I'm "ignorant and belligerent". Also, I wasn't "attacking you". I was just merely pointing out that you don't get what we're trying to say, and drag this argument around in circles. If I wanted to attack you I would start trolling or giving you titles (such as ignorant), like you just did to me. But you go out of the way to insult other people because you don't like their stand point. Good for you. Very spot on.
 
Last edited:
Well...

I've missed a great deal.

I knew GG had split 4chan apart, but I didn't think it would reach here.

Anyone willing to do a quick recap for someone who has been without stable Internet for months?
 
To quote modern days' Shakespeare, Fred Durst, from his lyrical masterpiece "Break Stuff":
"Everything is fucked, everybody sucks"
Seriously though, read the thread. It's very entertaining.
 
You're fanatical, and intolerant of any other opinion. You will never understand that both sides of the coin have something to offer. Both are traits I cannot admire. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person, we've all got our faults, but I'm just saying.
That's not how this shit works, you pick a side at either extreme, dig your heels in, hold you hands over your ears and keep bloviating pretentious, partisan, rhetoric until the other guy gets fed up. You'll never win at this man. Cut the shit with your naive notions of common ground, multi-facets to an argument and everyone's opinion having validity. Sander and Taz agree, so, it's like unanimous.
 
If you're so entrenched in the idea that the other side is ignorant, how is proper debate even possible? I might agree with you're stances but I would never say you don't understand the fundamental basics of what I'm saying. I also wouldn't say that a few times when you post a less than completely reasonable response, that it is evidence of a complete and utter lack of understanding of something bigger. It says that you're picture of the opposing view in this thread and the previous one was not once correct in understanding any of your points for almost 100 pages now over what, 2 months by now? I'm willing to entertain the idea that I'm pretty retarded, but hey, I want at least a little credit bro.

Well...

I've missed a great deal.

I knew GG had split 4chan apart, but I didn't think it would reach here.

Anyone willing to do a quick recap for someone who has been without stable Internet for months?

Accurate picture of current gamergate situation:
B2JfTpHCIAMwibH.jpg

Here's an actual update though:


http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag372/Akratus1/B4FNUrsCYAIqrKG_zps7565a1c8.jpg
gee boy this sure is interesting, nothing going on here no siree move along

it also has nothing to do with me, carry on to ignore me and this links there's nothing here
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/02/wikipedia-is-very-masculine-so-feminists-pledge-to-fix-it/
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/an-epic-edit-a-thon-takes-aim-at-wikipedias-gender-gap
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/08/storming-wikipedia-women-problem-internet
"with the goal being to collaboratively write feminist thinking into the site,"
the fact that the article on hitler is less condemning than the gamergate article/cultural marxism article or any other opposition is also a coincidence nothing to see here

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4E-lxCIAAAPvdS.png:large
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not how this shit works, you pick a side at either extreme, dig your heels in, hold you hands over your ears and keep bloviating pretentious, partisan, rhetoric until the other guy gets fed up. You'll never win at this man. Cut the shit with your naive notions of common ground, multi-facets to an argument and everyone's opinion having validity. Sander and Taz agree, so, it's like unanimous.
Not every argument is one with two sides where reasonable people can disagree. Sometimes, people are just wrong.

Akratus said:
If you're so entrenched in the idea that the other side is ignorant, how is proper debate even possible? I might agree with you're stances but I would never say you don't understand the fundamental basics of what I'm saying. I also wouldn't say that a few times when you post a less than completely reasonable response, that it is evidence of a complete and utter lack of understanding of something bigger. It says that you're picture of the opposing view in this thread and the previous one was not once correct in understanding any of your points for almost 100 pages now over what, 2 months by now? I'm willing to entertain the idea that I'm pretty retarded, but hey, I want at least a little credit bro.
You've demonstrated for 80 pages that you don't understand the actual argument. You just don't. This is not based on a few "less than completely reasonable" responses, but your entire post history on this topic. You genuinely, fundamentally do not understand what I'm saying, as you keep demonstrating through the fact that basically every single one of your responses is aimed at a straw man version of my (or other feminist's) arguments. That's just reality.

Though I would agree the re-naming of that Cultural Marxism article is silly. It's certainly a right-wing conspiracy theory, but people refer to it as "cultural marxism".
 
Back
Top