Censorship? There is no censorship!

It was a problem from the day you started doing it. You'd post something, people were confused about what you wanted to say with it, people told you to fucking read and comment what you share. Again and again. You were told to not just post stuff without commenting. That whole "This is not your personal blog"-thing is old. Yet you're still doing it, at least when you're not busy posting stupid meme-reactions to whatever. I guess there was a point when Sander was simply fed up with that.
Just fucking comment on what you write! Give a short summary, write about what you think your link implies, try to fucking think for yourself (and share that, please)!
That's also a big reason why your jokes rarely work. Nobody knows what your real opinion is, so Poe's Law comes into effect frequently. You cite weird-ass pages without comment and then except everyone to understand your jokes.
Fuck, man, to understand your jokes we need to understand who the hell you are, and what your actual opinion is! But we won't get that from your random collection of articles unless you provide some commentary.
 
I don't care if it's a problem or what people think of my jokes. Is there a succesful joke quota I have to fill? I already know a link is less valuable than an opinion in a discussion. I'm not that dumb. I just want fair, evenhanded and consistent moderation.
 
The point is not the jokes. The point is that the moderation tries to keep a proper discussion going, something you deliberately ignore by posting uncommented articles. So if you already know that simply posting link-collections like a bot doesn't add anything useful, and you understand that clogging up the thread with it is frowned upon, then why are you doing it?
The moderation is consistent in that you have been warned to not do that, you deliberately ignored it and now your link-collections will be vatted until you learn how to contribute to a discussion. Those link-collections together with the memes is not exactly the best way to show that you're interested in actual discussions. Provide actual content and none of your posts will be vatted.
 
Akratus said:
Then why was it not a problem up until now? I don't care about such a rule being enforced but at least be consistent. Besides, some of my posts had legitimate points, yet were removed all the same.
Click to expand...
Because previously you were engaging in discussion, and now you're just trolling. Though note that you have also repeatedly been told to not just post linkdumps.

There is consistency, here. No one else in this thread is treating this as a linkdump and trolling space. No one in this thread is doing what you were doing. If you want to continue to post here, alter your behavior. If you only want to linkdump and troll while not engaging in discussion, this is not the place for you.
 
This just popped up and being nearly totally divorced from the tv programs... Is this really real (sorry for the butchery of language)? I mean wha?

http://youtu.be/N2ukaor3EwU
(Mundane Matt on most recent Law & Order episode, or spinoff's episode... something.)
 
I am baffled that GamerGaters like MundaneMatt think the episode was good for them. They were ridiculed throughout. All of their complaints were mocked. They were portrayed as anything from whiny, entitled assholes who feel threatened by women, to violently dangerous whiny, entitled assholes. And while obviously SVU took GamerGate and turned the dial to 11 by going with actual kidnapping, rape and attempted murder rather than sticking with violent threats and swatting, a lot of the details were very much based on the real thing. And yeah, the lingo is embarrassing, and some of the stuff is silly -- it's SVU, that's what they do. But SVU's reach is huge, and this will be the main cultural touchstone for this whole deal for a lot of people. GamerGate does not come out looking good, here.

Here's a supercut of the episode:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe because it shows that the anti gamergate narrative has been simplified and exaggerated just to dismiss them without actually engaging in actual discussion and it's a lot of childish demonization and strawmanning? You know that many things can be gathered from a work that the author didn't intend to say? Just because I write an essay on how awesome Open world sandbox games are I can inadvertently end up making an argument for them being shit, among other things I never meant to say.

For example, fabricating evidence and lying to prove a point can end up actually damaging said point regardless of legitimacy.
 
If this SVU is meant as joke than I have to say it is not really a good one.

I guess you can throw dirt around from either side of the fence.
 
It wasn't a joke, it was a genuine attempt at pandering by means of a "ripped from the headlines" type of story that only took the sensationalist side as it's inspiration.
 
Walpknut said:
Maybe because it shows that the anti gamergate narrative has been simplified and exaggerated just to dismiss them without actually engaging in actual discussion and it's a lot of childish demonization and strawmanning?
Click to expand...
The episode shows the dismissals and "demonization" (read: describing what has been done to people) to be completely justified, given that everyone on the "GamerGate" side in the episode is either a childish asshole, or a violently dangerous asshole.

Which yes, is a simplification. But it's not a simplification that is good for GamerGate. It's horrible for GamerGate because for a lot of people, this will be their cultural touchstone for this whole six-month clusterfuck.
 
I fear people that are not really much in to gamergate will see that shit and not make a difference between the members inside of GamerGate or even Gamers in general, for them it will be just Gamers. That is the sad part about it, people don't take the chance to eventually go trough the whole thing - though who can really blame them, it is a mess. It is just sad for those normal people that happen to enjoy games a lot but will never call them self "gamers" so that they aren't shoe horned in some kind of box and simply labeled as someone of those people that are nerds and don't like females in gaming. I am sure not even everyone in GamerGate can be described as such.

So in the end GamerGate has actually achieved the exact opossite of what they always wanted to achieve. I guess it would to easy at this point though to just blame the media as whole and their habbit of simplification.
 
I'm sure that even propaganda on the level of Christian anti-gay/atheist/RPG comics can have a social engineering impact. But it's still hilarious that they'd show this shit on TV.
 
Sander said:
Walpknut said:
Maybe because it shows that the anti gamergate narrative has been simplified and exaggerated just to dismiss them without actually engaging in actual discussion and it's a lot of childish demonization and strawmanning?
Click to expand...
The episode shows the dismissals and "demonization" (read: describing what has been done to people) to be completely justified, given that everyone on the "GamerGate" side in the episode is either a childish asshole, or a violently dangerous asshole.

Which yes, is a simplification. But it's not a simplification that is good for GamerGate. It's horrible for GamerGate because for a lot of people, this will be their cultural touchstone for this whole six-month clusterfuck.
Click to expand...

And Mazes and Monsters killed Dungeons and Dragons.
And Reefer Madness stopped teens smoking dope.

Edit: Also the Episode didn't even name drop Gamergate.
 
Kilus said:
And Mazes and Monsters killed Dungeons and Dragons.
And Reefer Madness stopped teens smoking dope.

Edit: Also the Episode didn't even name drop Gamergate.
Click to expand...
But Mazes and Monsters and Reefer Madness both had a pretty big impact on how the public saw D&D and weed, respectively. Yeah, we laugh at that now because it's idiotic, but those campaigns shaped the public's views for quite some time.

That's not to say that this episode will have that impact. I don't think it will. But I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone can think this episode is good for GamerGate in any way.
 
Sander said:
The episode shows the dismissals and "demonization" (read: describing what has been done to people) to be completely justified, given that everyone on the "GamerGate" side in the episode is either a childish asshole, or a violently dangerous asshole.

Which yes, is a simplification. But it's not a simplification that is good for GamerGate. It's horrible for GamerGate because for a lot of people, this will be their cultural touchstone for this whole six-month clusterfuck.
Click to expand...

Eh? Mate, nowadays, if one is still naive enough to believe what MSM (of any persuasion) pukes out into the airwaves without at least spending a few moments to compare it to lesser / fringe / semi-professional sources, then (sans massive pockets and a media empire of your own) there isn't much that can be done to correct the misconceptions.
And frankly, most of the time, when a MSM source tries to create a neo-boogieman story, it simply backfires because at a very deep level, MSM (both entertainment and news) sources have lost most of the trust and acceptance they had.
 
That may be what you think people should do, but it's not at all what people actually do. People listen to and get their information from the media they consume.

EDIT: Oh hey, GamerGate's perfect example of an ethical journalist Milo Yiannopoulos wrote a hitpiece wherein he outs a trans woman based on there being a forum user somewhere with the same name, and then ascribes that forum user's actions to the 'outed' woman based on...that one connection. The number of gross ethical violations in that piece astounds me. And it's one of the top articles on KotakuInAction. Because GamerGate is about ethics in journalism! That is, excusing the complete lack of them. I'm not linking any of it because fuck. that. noise.
 
Ugh, dammit. I thought you got it by now Sander.
All these fucking people are insane and it doesn't matter if they will ever stop.
The problem is that shouting shit on the internet gives you the best high ever.
Just think back to all those good times when we had a common enemy. Todd Howard and Emil Pagliarulo. Those were the days. Ahhhhhhh.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top