Never said I was oppressed, or there was any SJW conspiracy. I said the reason people don't like "SJWs" is because of shit that they pull, like in the Opal example I outlined above. What's worse is if you follow these people that were involved in that incident for awhile and see the types of things they write. They have no moral high ground to be dictating the behaviour of others.

And that's the chip that's on my shoulder. People being assholes to other people they don't know anything about because, "diversity". When most of the time they're working to exclude people that they disagree with. It's not about diversity, it's about censorship.

You'd benefit from this as well http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

So here's the problem, people automatically assume because he had certain beliefs, which I don't share, to beliefs are malicious in intent. They're not. You don't know my father, you don't know how kind he is to everyone. He believes strongly Gays shouldn't use the word marriage, but has no issue with them joining in civial union. It's a stupid argument, but that's his position. It doesn't make him a bad person, but people scream, "RELIGION! He wants to damn everyone to hell!! He's a horible bigoted asshole!", without even getting to know him or his position.

Let's look up the term "bigot" and see what it says.

So I'm sorry, but when he gets attacked by someone because they don't share his opinions and they have no desire to even be reasonable... well the definition is quite clear.

A couple of things, first Nathan Grayson did admit to sleeping with the dev, but he claimed it was days after he'd written his last article about her. Sorry if I find that a little to coincidental. In any case, Nathan did write about her, he was also thanked in the game he shilled for her, he didn't disclose any of that.

https://archive.today/5IBg1
http://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.today/0KhZv

But the, "Sex for good reviews" is still just a distraction that's thrown in. "Sex", rather than "relationship", because it lets people push the argument toward being about a women and her sex life while ignoring Grayson is the one in the wrong who had the breach of ethics. "Reviews" is used to intentionally obfuscate the issue because he did write about her and her game, but he didn't review it. To a lot of people "write about" and "review" are pretty much the same thing so most don't catch the use of the term "review" until the start getting hammered over the semantics.

This is done to keep people from discussing all the stuff that came out AFTER that incident. The GameJournoPro list, the black listing of journos and devs that didn't toe the line, financial ties between journalists, judges and indi devs, the "Gamers are dead" articles and other journos that covered friends and roommates without disclosures to name a few.

If you do get past the depression quest incident, then they'll likely just start dismissing everything else as unrelated and/or trivial and will claim it's not what gamers are concerned about or they'll use the old, "If you cared about ethics, you'd be going after publishers instead of women" (because some journalists happen to be women and therefore cannot be talked about), which is Kafkatrapping you into defending yourself against accusations of misogyny instead of talking about the blatant ethical violations.

Bull, As a parent of a young girl NO ONE is telling her what she's interested in, other than the people constantly whining about girls not going into tech fields. Who also happen to be the people the perpetuate needless, "womenz are so harazzed".

http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

What, like everyone else who's worked for more than 5 years? I have been thoroughly lambasted by co-workers and sexually harassed. It's not right, but you can't complain about not getting special treatment then bitch about being treated like everyone else. Take the issues on a case by case basis and deal with it through the HR department. Don't whine about theoretical women not getting special treatment as an excuse for why women don't go into tech.

Good, don't put up with it. It's volunteer work, don't like it, don't volunteer, it's that simple. In either case stop whining that people won't do things your way and go off and do things your way. I wish Matthew Garrett good luck, but I imagine his project will be just as "toxic" except in a different way and it'll be to specific people, who are "acceptable targets", rather than to everyone. I'm sure SJW Linux will be a big hit with all it's privilege checking.

Negligible when everything is factored in. Men work more hours, for more of their lives, with less time off for things like raising families. You can't distill life down to how many cents on a dollar a person makes.

Stop making up words as an excuse to be a douche bag PC Bro

TL;DR
You are the problem in every issue you've brought out. If there's any reason women aren't going in to tech it's because people like you are making them feel unwelcome by perpetuate stereotypes, spread misinformation and mock people who don't agree, which polarizes the issue making people bitter toward actual social justice issues. The harder you push, the harder the push back is going to be.

The problem with using Wiki even as just a pointer to real source information is that it points to the sources an elite group wants you to see. As I said, not just anyone can edit it anymore, so you only get the incredibly bias hyperbolic ideological articles the editors that are camping that article want you to see.

It's to the point it shouldn't even be a starting point for research because it, and the sources it uses, will taint your perspective on whatever topic you're trying to learn about.

An editor can literally generate content for an article they want to write by just writing an article because journalists will take things from wiki without looking at sources and use that as a basis for their articles, which, again, get fed back into the wiki article they're using as a bases. It really is as simple as creating an article on Gobblegroungewoopie with fake sources, sending it to a journo who writes clickbait about the latest trends, then using the results to support Gobblegroungewoopie as a real thing with real sources.

So if you have an agenda to push, wiki is now a powerful tool to get your ridiculous ideas into the public domain.

What the AC above me said

Just look at what happened to the Opal community to see why people have a major beef with "SJWs"

https://github.com/opal/opal/i...

Go back and read the twitter conversation that shit storm was started from

https://twitter.com/elia/statu...

He had an opinion on gender reassignment surgery being done on kids, that's not transphobic, but a couple SJW's started calling for his head. At first they were told to stuff it, so they went to twitter to drum up a mob

https://twitter.com/CoralineAd...

Which included attacking anyone on the project that disagree with them

https://twitter.com/CoralineAd...

Ultimately this Code of Conduct was merged into the project. Now check out who it was that wrote that CoC, that's right the same person that started the issue is the person that wrote the CoC that got shoehorned into the project of someone's opinion on kids having gender reassignment surgery.

What's worse is this line:

was added after the fact because by the original CoC, Elia Schito didn't do anything wrong.

On top of people taking "donations" to edit content, just one reason it shit, there are editors that use their cliques in the wiki community to make articles say whatever the hell they want. It's not open for anyone to edit anymore, if you contradict the wrong person you get the boot, which has lead to a concentration of ideology pushers. Seriously, just read the talk page for some of these things, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Also take a moment to think how their system works. An editor goes out, find articles that say what they want, while excluding ones that contradict them. Then the crap wiki article gets read by a journo who writes a hyperbolic article about the topic, which then gets fed back into the wiki article leading to a more and more unbalanced topic.

This is why people get laughed at for citing wiki and people need to know it's no good for anything above doing research on potatoes.

Wikipedia is shit. I highly recommend you don't cite it as it destroys credibility.

My point is, I'm not believing some he-said-she-said BS, If I don't personally witness it happening, I'm not taking someone's word for it. It's far too easy to take just about anything out of context from a tweet, or FB post or a paragraph of some communication or a donation made for some obscure reason and twist that into evidence of racists, homophobic, sexists, misogynistic behavior. So unless it's a tangible action I see happen, I'm not supporting a mob going after them.

Exactly this. My Dad is against gay marriage, but it's because he's very religious and believes in protecting what he precises marriage is. I've had many drunk arguments with him over it. He doesn't hate gay people, he just had different values. Unfortunately it's really easy for people to twist those values as representing a bigoted position so they can call him names, mock him and dismiss any arguments he has to make. It kills me sometimes because I don't agree with him, but I despise the way people treat him because of that one view.

Remember it's not bullying or discrimination as long as you pick the "right" target

For all the browsers we have a choice to use, there's something great about each of them and something crap about each of them. They all have perks and flaws... Except Internet Explorer, that's just shit all round. Haven't used Edge yet so I can't comment on it.

I'm aware, I was responding to the hypothetical example with my hypothetical responce.

It's thought policing to go after someone because of their personal thoughts and opinions that they've never let influence how they treat people.

I said if I personally witnessed him being a white supremacist. If I actually saw him randomly physically attacking a black or jewish person because they were black or jewish. That's policing actions, not thoughts.

Then that should have been left up to his employees, not a twitter mob of people that don't know him who were told he was a bigot because of a political donation.

We're in agreement here

That's essentially what I said I'm doing, but when there's a "PC culture" component to the claim I look extra careful at it along with who's making it and what their motives are. A lot of the time it's someone making fluff from nothing and putting words into people's mouths in an effort to frame them for something.

You are a moron.

For starters Hunt stepped down from his position.
Secondly it's now common knowledge that the reporter took his original comments out of context and choose to withhold the entire thing for her personal agenda.

http://observer.com/2015/07/la...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...

Unfortunately weeks of slander can't be undone by a couple articles pointing out how wrong they were to slander him.

A better solution would be for journalists to stop treating hashtags like they deserves the same coverage as some kind of nuclear war. I'm seriously disgusted at the number of articles on sites like the CBC where entire articles are nothing but a series of cherry picked out-of-context tweets with the journalists giving you their play by play misrepresentation of what EVERYONE is saying.

Holy shit, I remember back when Lauren O'Neil did her hit piece on GamerGate and wrote that awful #StopGamerGate2014 article. I went and looked at the tag and 40% of it was GamerGate people making fun of it, 50% was a stupid bot repeating ISIS propaganda over and over and then there was a few people in between treating it like it was a serious thing. Lauren took the few people of the THOUSANDS of tweets in it and treated it like the entire internet was anti-GamerGate in spite of most of the non-botted content coming from actual GamerGate supporters. Their hash tag lasted all of a day, but it didn't stop her from propping up her bull shit analysis and making a big deal out of less than a mosquito of an issue.

Although it is a little funny now, I can't read an article without seeing a tweet from someone I know as a GamerGate supporter.

Sarkeesian's entire claim to fame now is, "I was harassed for my opinions... they... they called me a liar and said I suck... just like everyone does to everyone else on the internet. Don't they know I'm a women? You can't say mean things about women... unless they disagree with me, then screw that bitch. WHERE'S MY ARMY OF FEMINIST!!."

I almost can't wait for 5-10 years down the road when she's completely irrelevant and everyone's making fun of her like they do to Jack Thompson now for having the exact same argument he had.