Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Its because she refused to censor a question (Score 2) 384 384

Bluntly stated, such a question can't possibly be "loaded".

You can judge for yourself if the question was or not loaded :

Yes, that was the actual question. Didn't seem to phase Rev. Jackson who just offered a non-reply.

Comment: Re:Pao Wants "Safe Spaces" for Shills and Ideologu (Score 2) 384 384

The main target seems to have been GameJournosPro and Leigh Alexander who wrote the basis of what was the "Gamers don't have to be your audience anymore" piece, which came as an answer to gamers asking why journalists were not covering TFYC incident, after it came out that the person responsible for that had had positive coverage by a journalist whom she was in a relationship with.

The banning and deletion of discussion on these issues really didn't help. seems very journalist focused too.

Comment: Re:Tired of gamer gate people (Score 1) 384 384

It would be nice to talk about genders in gaming, without all the faked outrage. I mean, you realise that Anita is just a massive troll right ? Her E3 "1 outrage every minute" type posting was clear as day. I'd like a discussion about actual gender in gaming, and how gaming has always been open to both genders, but still has failed to draw women in further than casual games (my mother was a big fan of Doctor Mario and Tetris for one thing). Even though we had great women designing games like Roberta Williams, and even female protagonists as early as the 80s (Laura Bow anyone ?) : I think Anita doesn't help any. In fact, polarizing the debate, and making it about "either you agree there's an issue or you're a misogynist" doesn't help anything.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 2) 384 384

I've never heard of either of these people, nor are they mentioned in my post.

You talked about Gamergate no ? From researching this stuff, I have found both to have been prominent Gamergate figures. So are you admitting you do not have all relevant information about the Gamergate campaign ?

I suggest more research before you continue discussion on the matter, because it's now apparent you're ill informed.

This is a piece Oliver wrote last year about this topic :

What the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Or is this a #notyourshield troll?

What ? What's "notyourshield" ? Guess it's other stuff I gotta look up.

Oh well, chatting with you is nice, I get to uncover a lot of things digging around following your posts. It seems this Notyourshield thing is exactly against what you seem to be doing here : dismissing women and minorities because they agree with Gamergate. Pretending they don't exist and erase them.

My question becomes, what do you have against women and minorities that hold different world view than you do that you would go to such length as to completely deny their existence ? I hope this is simply lack of information on your part, and not intolorence to people who disagree with you.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 3, Interesting) 384 384

Plenty. You can start here.

The wikipedia article on this subject is rooted in controversy, up to the point that some of its editors were both topic and site banned from Wikipedia. At this point, no, I won't start with it as it's obviously not a neutral source.

we read what you write...
because you fuckers SHITPOST...
  you really are so stupid...

What's this YOU stuff ? Who are you talking to ? You're assuming things about me... for instance :

in your own words on 8chan, /r/KIA, and under the #gamergate hashtag.

I never visited the chan's, and have neither Twitter nor Reddit accounts. So those words can't be mine.

Now, let's review your list of allegations, all of which have no backing or evidence :

- Do everything possible to prevent discussions of women in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Where have you been prevented from discussing women in tech and how have you been prevented from doing so exactly ? I mean, if you try to inject "women in tech" in discussions unrelated to women, I could see how people would dismiss you and downvote you, but in actual discussions about women in tech ?

- Harass female game devs constantly, because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you have any evidence showing these female game devs were not harassed because of ethics in gaming journalism ? It seems the whole issue that launched this (outside of years of build up with things like Doritogate and other growing concerns) is the fact that Nathan Grayson wrote this favorable piece :

It seems to me that the issue people have is not that the developer is a woman, it's that Nathan Grayson (a man) used a screenshot to feature prominently the game of a person he had a personal relationship with, without disclosing said relationship. On top of that, it seems Nathan participated in making the game as his name is part of the credits, so essentially pushing his work.

Rather shoddy for a journalist.

- Talk non stop about so-called "SJWs" and never mention journalists. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Looking at one of Gamergate's projects,, all the listed journalists seem to in fact be journalists.

I mean, I could see where SJW (a pejorative term used for people who use Social Justice causes to label and attack other people, with little care to the actual cause itself) could be used to describe some more fringe "journalist" like Jessica Valenti of the Guardian, because some of her opinions are pretty extermist in nature (nothing to do with her gender before you draw the conclusion it's because she's a woman) though.

- Demand Slashdot ban discussions related to diversity in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you have a citation for Gamergate asking Slashdot (specifically) to not discuss diversity in tech ? Because Slashdot doesn't seem to have listened, we have diversity in Tech articles all the time.

- Call JACK THOMPSON "BASED DAD", a lawyer who has actually tried to ban games, while calling Anita Sarkeesian a "censor" or "authoritarian", because she produced a video identifying tropes she feels are sexist in various video games. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

I'll have to ask for a citation on this. In fact, looking at GamerGhazi's (which seem to be a group that opposes Gamergate) post about this situation, it seems that Gamergate equates Anita and Jack Thompson, not hold them to different standards :

Do you have a different citation ?

- Support the "journalism" of Milo Yiannopoulos, because he certainly has NOTHING to do with "ethics in (ANY) journalism" FFS.

I've read some of the Milo pieces, last one he did on Gamergate itself (in the headline) seems to be this one and it seems to be about bomb threats at a meet up people of Gamergate did, which coincided with strange comments on Twitter by a MAN (not a woman).

- Pretend a mass harassment campaign against prominent women in journalism is not going on, pretending instead it's some kind of fund raising stunt (even though it doesn't apparently help any of the targets that it's going on), because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Wait, women in journalism now ? I mean, looking again at their Deepfreeze stuff, there are a few women there, but they seem to be targetted for their behavior, not their gender, and are no more or less targetted than the men on that list.

Do you have evidence that show this targetting of women in particular, and evidence as to it being done because of their gender ? Are you suggesting women cannot be held to ethical standards, because of their gender ?

You seem to talk a lot about misogyny, you realise that means hatred of women because they are women right ? No disagreeing with someone who happens to be a woman ?

Just checking.

Comment: Re:It is a vicious cycle (Score 1) 384 384

To be fair, Facebook is still popular, but frankly, like at your timeline if you still have your account. It used to be your Timeline was your friends sharing pictures and thoughts and feelings.

Now it's mostly just the "brand" or commercial pages you liked that are showing you their latest product or "things you may like" type posts from pages you never even liked or affiliated with. The posts from your actual friends are few and far between.

Comment: Re:Like a Confederate Flag (Score 1) 384 384

For someone who preaches like you do, you sure seem to like labelling people instead of simply judging what they say based on the merit of it. You know, you don't have to agree or disagree with 100% of what a person says, just because you happen to have a different opinion on 1 subject.

Labels just serve to further fan the flames of hatred. If someone says something that is misinformed, debunk it. Next time they talk about another topic, if what they say is right and factual, agree with them. Don't hold grudges.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 384 384

Got any evidence ? No articles online about your campaign has any evidence or direct quotes. It seems that a few individuals are trying to smear that movement in order to prop up their already highly profitable patreon accounts, but outside that, most news source seem to indicate that this movement cares more about disclosure in gaming media, and quite a few women and minorities seem to affiliate themselves with this movement.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 2) 384 384

Interesting how the moderation on virtually everything I post that's anti-harassment these days proves my point.

Your post was downvoted for pretending people like Jenny Bharaj or Oliver Campbell are white male teenager, rather than a women and a black man.

At least be honest when you try to broadly paint a movement as something, as not to dismiss women and minorities like you did. You won't get down modded as much if you are truthful, rather than posting simple flamebait.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 2) 384 384

You're not Voltaire. And neither is anyone on reddit.

Voltaire isn't the only person who can defend the right to say something, even if they disagree with what is being said. To pretend any people doing that is evil, is to pretend Voltaire himself and a lot of the literature from the Age of Enlightenment is evil.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 4, Informative) 384 384

The one that calls a harassment campaign that's trying to silence women (and other minorities) in tech and their supporters through threats of violence "free minded geeks", and those who oppose them "authoritarian" and "apologists for censorship"?

Which campaign is this ? I haven't seen such a campaign online or in tech. In fact, most tech places I've worked at for the last 18 years have been tripping over themselves to hire any women that actually apply, as long as they are qualified.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 5, Insightful) 384 384

You people are the rednecks of the internet, and YEEHAW I GOTS MY FREE SPEECH BUT DON'T KNOW WHERE TO POINT IT.

Your opinion is not the one that is objectively right, as opinions cannot be objective. So stop trying to pretend you're a good guy to everyone else being "evil". Voltaire was not evil.

Comment: Re:DailyWail (Score 1) 371 371

I said what I said, it was a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists, and what was intended as a sort of light-hearted ironic comment, apparently was interpreted deadly seriously by my audience.

So wait, let me get this straight. When people say "he changed his side of the story, at first in the BBC interview, he said he was serious!", they are actually wrong, because his point from day 1 was that the comment was made in irony ?

Comes back to the entire point : are we too quick to condemn people over social media outrage, before we have a chance to process the entire body of evidence ? I mean, if we now need to publically destroy people over ironic statements, might as well burn all literature from the Age of Enlightenment (looking at you Voltaire).

Comment: Re:Ohh, she's female AND black (Score 1) 371 371

And right back to Ad hominems. MRA, uninformed... etc.. etc..

See, this is about artificial boundaries that unnecessarily inhibit people in some groups from participation.

Every IT work place I've been in trips over themselves to hire women and minorities that do apply to the positions we have. There are no artificial boundaries. Girl wants to work in programming or IT, girl goes to school for it, girl applies to job, girl fufills dream.

You didn't even bother to list any of your perceived artificial barriers.

My girlfriend works in development and application support. She faced no artificial boundaries. No real ones either. She studied, got a degree, found work.

Comment: Re:Ohh, she's female AND black (Score 1) 371 371

I don't deny the situation exists. Conversely, the same situation exists in many fields. I deny though that it is a problem. If you think it's a problem, do you also find lack of men in nursing an issue ? Lack of women in garbage collection ? Lack of men in child daycare work ?

Also, if you really feel we need to achieve Equality of Outcome, why do you feel diversity quotas are better than simply naturally letting people choose careers that interest them ? If we have 100 skilled IT workers, wouldn't it be best to have 100 of them working in IT instead of hiring the 10 women and then only 10 men to achieve a 50-50 split, while leaving 80 people unemployed ?

Do you also feel that it's better for someone to get a job because of his skin color or gender than because he's the best candidate ?

Because to me those would be creating a problem where none exists.

Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?