Lots of gamers resent feminism capturing their press

When did it become "their" press? If someone chooses to start a website that covers games, it belongs to him. Just because you happen to like his site and read it all the time does not mean that you have an proprietary right to decide what points of view are expressed there.

The gamers, who just want to escape reality, feel like their corporate-owned journalism industry should cater to them if they expect to remain profitable.

Maybe the people who run the corporate-owned journalism would rather not be associated with you. I play a lot of games and enjoy them. I follow the gaming press. And I really don't want to be associated with rapey adolescent scumbags. My guess is that rapey adolescent scumbags are not as lucrative a demographic as women who actually might have jobs and disposable income of their own instead of their parents.

They aren't entitled to the eyeballs that they sell to advertisers.

Maybe they don't care about your eyeballs. Of course you could go ahead and start your own Women Hater's Club Gaming Website and try to attract your own advertisers. Good luck with that.

This might help:
http://youtu.be/0XtEkauJzjE?t=...

From an objective setting, all opinions are equal, though truth (objective truth) may be closer represented by one side or another. But, since we're all subjective beings,

If we're all subjective beings, isn't that evidence that there is no such thing as an "objective opinion"? And since we're not all equal (except perhaps in the eyes of some mythical God or some mythical government), then why would you think our opinions are equal?

Everyone is welcome to their opinion

No. A young gamer who believes all women secretly want to be raped is not welcome to his opinion. Or if he is, it's not by anyone who doesn't hold the same aberrant viewpoint. "Welcome" indicates some element of respect. Not all opinions are worthy of respect.

and in a case like this, probably everyone is right (in their own mind).

What your suggesting is that there is no right and wrong. That someone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old thinks he is right in his own mind does not mean that his opinion has to be welcome in a classroom or among a group of biologists.

This notion of "there is no right, there is no wrong and there are two sides to every story" is very silly. It's something that certain people say because they think it sounds smart and worldly, but is actually very dumb. It doesn't matter what they think is right in their mind. Nobody else is required to respect their opinion in any way.

Create an account that appears to be LGBT. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be Jewish. Play some games. Record the reactions.

Create an account that appears to be Muslim. Play some games. Record the reactions..

I really don't want to ask what such an account name would look like.

And, if someone did come up with a handle or avatar that somehow indicated that they were a black gay jew, there would be approximately zero chance that they were actually a black gay jew. The notion that a gay man is going to join an online game and create a character named, "ButtsexLover69" is mainly projection on the part of the straight gaming bros.

I don't know how you choose your gaming handle, but I generally don't make it indicative of my race, religion or sexual orientation. The main problem seems to occur when a woman is foolish enough to use a woman's name.

Plus, we have plenty of examples of men using female characters in online games getting treated very badly. You can find many such stories in the gaming press.

I guess under these standards the papua new guinea indigenous dress [google.com] would be considered pornography and 'child pornography'.

No. There's nothing "sexually explicit" about that dress. Nudity is not per se sexually explicit (see the example of Thora Birch cited, or any number of TV commercials featuring naked babies).

No thank you. I generally don't click pastebin links from ACs.

I'm not sure exactly what we're giving up by maintaining minimum specs. Is there some rule by which raising the minimum specs improves performance on more powerful machines? Or that lower minimum specs means the OS won't run as well on the latest hardware?

I can run Ubuntu on an old 486. Does that mean it can't scale up to my i7, or that it's somehow less powerful than if they set a higher minimum?

Or is this a reaction to the fact that on the rare occasions that Mac OS has major update they always raise the minimum specs? Maybe the fact that Microsoft doesn't sell the system AND the OS together means they don't have an incentive to get us to dump our hardware when it gets to be four years old.

The degree to which the SJW crowd has to resort to increasingly-inflammatory headlines and articles gives me a lot of hope, because it indicates that the collective unconscious of the Internet really does have a funcitoning immune response that can limit the damaged caused by that particularly nasty virus.

Now if only the Internet had a functioning immune response to misogyny, bullying, sick rape fantasies and adolescent jerkoffs whose hobby is making other people's lives miserable.

But thank goodness we've stopped feminism in its tracks, huh?

Ha, so I dropped the terror word.

Bro mentality. You wonder how they figured out how to use a game controller.

That is what you would call your opinion. You're as welcome to it as those you disagree with.

I'm not sure what that little bon mot of moral equivalence is supposed to mean in this context. Do you have any reason to believe the person to whom you're responding doesn't realize that his opinion is his opinion? Or that he's welcome to it?

The fact is that not all opinions are equal or welcome. If your opinion is that women are to be treated like dirt in any online interaction, your opinion is pretty well fucked. And unfortunately, it only takes a handful of these to poison all online interactions between anyone, anywhere. There are a lot of people out here who have decided just to leave all multiplayer online games alone because so many gamers just don't know how to behave. It's absolutely reasonable to expect a commercial entity to make sure such interactions are kept safe for its customers. Women should be able to believe that they can go play a game without some greasy little pimply fucker to hassle her because she's female. Or anyone, for any reason.

This notion, that seems to be the subtext of your comment is that, "Hey it's free speech and I can be as big an asshole as I want and you can't do shit" is simply not true. If you're in a restaurant having a nice meal and some drunk frat boy comes over and starts pissing on your shoe, you have the right to ask the management to 86 them. In fact, if you take into consideration the fact that most of the other patrons would also like to have a nice quiet meal without anyone pissing on their shoes, you have the responsibility to go to the management and ask them to throw the guy out. Even if the guy isn't pissing on anyone's shoes, but is standing up make loud, rude comments to every female restaurant customer, he does not have any "right to free speech" in that situation.

So no, not all opinions are welcome if your opinion happens to be that all women deserve to be abused. Or that anyone deserves to be abused.

I never heard of any of this shit before today. Who and what are these people and why should I care? I don't get it.

You shouldn't care. Unfortunately, the people who should care do not. There is a lot of ugly misogyny in games. This is because such a large percentage of gamers are scumbags or young men who engage in the online equivalent of pulling a girl's pigtails because she makes them feel funny in the pants and they don't yet know why.

The problem is that, being online, there are no longer limits. If you're a woman gamer, and you don't respond to certain male gamers they way they want you to, you will get death threats, rape threats and doxxing. And it goes from 0-60 in nothing flat. Playing online games all day has left many of these young men completely without any sort of self-governance of their id. And people end up getting hurt. Sometimes in very real-world ways.

The fact that most games are written and told from an adolescent male point of view does not help. It creates a sort of greasy milieu where it's easy to believe that any behavior toward a woman is acceptable.

Lots of good gaming sites like Gamasutra are looking to include more female voices in coverage of games, because it turns out (much to our surprise) that there are actually women gaming out there and interestingly enough, they don't want to be treated like shit every single goddamn day of their lives. I don't know anything about these "gaters" (and when I google it I get a bunch of misspelled information about Florida college football) and I haven't read Gamasutra in a while (I don't see anything on their current front page that would indicate any striking feminist agenda at work). But I do know that Microsoft would throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar bump in stock price, so whatever the facts are in this story, there's a good chance that Microsoft is in the wrong. Because.

Could Maroney Be Prosecuted For Her Own Hacked Pictures?

I want to give this question careful consideration, so I'll get back to you after a more extensive examination of the photographs in question.

Non social or Unsocial. Antisocial is picking people off with a rifle from your front door as they walk/drive by.

In the US, we call that "home security".

Well known problem. Once attached to a domain, Windows attempts to do all kinds of stupid things. One of the most common problems is the open/save file dialog. The OS attempts to display it, then blocks until it contacts the domain servers to look up the user's actual name. Then there are similar delays that happen as it goes out and probes each drive, which is a problem if they are mapped network drives as the display waits until everything is built before the UI appears.

On a machine that is disconnected from the domain, perhaps a laptop away from the office, it gets even worse. Internally there is a 45 second delay on each of the network probes, and between Windows 2000 through Windows 7 they all fired sequentially. So if you had your own friendly name plus three mapped drives, that's three minutes of waiting for network connections to time out. It is somewhat faster under Windows 8, but in bad cases can still take ages.

For these specific issues they will not fix the root problems of the shell blocking until after data is loaded or probing the domain for security settings as it would break many shell plugins. It can be made partially better by disabling some of the features; they include disabling certain group policies on shell extensions, turning off certain domain security and SCAPI settings, and disabling drive mappings whenever possible. When disconnected, removing all VPN lookups and disabling proxy detections can also help. Even with those improvements, attaching a machine to a domain introduces an immediate performance penalty on everything shell-related.

Another similar set of problems is apps that try to probe the MRU file list when files are on the network. Many parts of the OS try to cache things based on prior use, and once you're wired in to the corporate network these probes (which stupidly are often blocking tasks) can take seconds to run while on the network, or minutes to run when they time out when off the corporate network.

If the company running the auction misrepresented the car's condition, he can certainly take it up with them or their lawyers. But he has no reason to blame Tesla for his situation, at all. According to the article, they're not trying to force him into any service contract, or pay a huge fee (they even said they would waive the inspection fee). But they have got to be able to cover themselves if he does something like electrocutes himself or hits someone if a repair they weren't responsible for is insufficient.