Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Gridlock (Score 1) 159

Sander's isn't shy about saying that his movement doesn't end with him being elected. We'd pretty much need a full flush of congress.

I'm pretty sure most can agree with that regardless of their opinion of Sanders.

I'm not sure we'd need to replace all of congress, just the ones that are hopelessly corrupted by the establishment or outside money. It would be a hard slog. There's no viable Ron Paul candidate on the Republican side; they would all likely gladly sing the praises of the TPP, so it's pretty much the only option if you're against the corporatocracy.

Comment Re: Gridlock (Score 0) 159

A Sanders nomination would be a disaster. No more gridlock as the Republicans have at least 2 years to party and spend like Democrats.

Remember: with Democrats it's "tax and spend" (kind of like it's supposed to work), with Republicans it's "tax-cut and spend" which is why our debt is sky-high. Go ask Saint Ronnie and Papa Bush how it felt to increase the size of the Government budget 3x over their combined tenure.

So spending will be there whether it's Republicans (more war!) or Democrats (some war, some social programs), just the Democrats tend to want to balance the books with increased revenue.

Comment Re:Gridlock (Score 2) 159

Republicans reject it before it even comes out and refuse to read it.

Because "Obama"

Which is why when Sanders is elected president in November, I can look forward to more entertaining gridlock, proposals that aren't "Republican-lite". Because if gridlock from a Democratic president is all we'll get, we might as well get propose some nice socialist ideas and get some nice leftward Overton window movement.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 234

You know what?

I'm perfectly ok with just feminism. In my mind there's no reason to be against people who think they advocate for equality and there's no reason to say, "if you believe in equality then you must do XXX", everyone has their own idea of what that is. A lot of people will call themselves feminist because they believe in the dictionary definition, but it's not a central part of their lives and they wouldn't support the crazies if they were in the same room with them. What I do have an issue with is, like you, "3rd wave". People that believe in stupid shit like, women can't be sexists, people of colour can't be racists, it's ok to discriminate against whites or males (they fucking deserve it). Those people to me aren't feminist, they're calling themselves feminist because it's the politically correct thing to do and makes it seem like they have a whole movement behind them, but they don't. It lets them get away with all kinds of other bigotry because they've fooled themselves into thinking they're a majority and certain people or people who share a certain ideology can't be wrong and they can't be sexists or racists or bigots or bad in anyway.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 234

What she is saying is that simply noticing and pointing stuff out isn't helpful and is actually just annoying. You have to transcend that and see it as a bunch of systems all interacting. So it's less about individuals or individual examples, and more about the systems that produce them.

That's why she does videos that cover the history of video games and how tropes came to exist, and how game mechanics evolved to perpetuate them. In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her, is that often it's just these cultural tropes that are the problem and you can make your game better by avoiding them. It's not that some evil misogynist sat in front of his computer, rubbing his hands in glee as he designed another Ms. Male Character trope to keep the women down, it's just that they are a thing, part of a system.

Some people refer this this type of claim as "conspiracy theory"

In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her

"love" is an interesting word to used instead of "fear". Devs that do speak out against here are often attacked, smeared, shamed and blacklisted.

I know far more game devs that despise or ignore her, or won't comment her for fear of being attacked, than those that "love" her. Also "some devs", would have been accurate, "many" is intentionally misleading. You can't even get "many' slashdotters to agree with you, but you can speak for game devs now?

Comment Re:Regulating Games was Never About Violence (Score 1) 234

It's not just politicians looking for the go ahead here. There's a whole industry of leches, "academics", "critics" and "journalists" who need this to be true so they can continue pushing their personal "research", "critiques" and clickbait. Getting politicians to recognize it is just the first step in getting government funding and expanding their reach / credibility.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 234

I highly recommend everyone watch the whole video, because if that 6 second clip wasn't enough to make you thinks she's batshit insane:

Unfortunately many contemporary discourses in and around feminism tend to emphasize a form of hyper individualism which is informed by the neoliberal worldview. More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act, this attitude is often referred to as ‘choice feminism’. Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger, fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women with a very narrow, individual notion of empowerment. It erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.

So basically, women shouldn't make choices for their own benefit, they should make choices that only "benefit" women as a collective. Benefit here being entirely dependent who is making that decision, which in this case is "feminist" or Anita specifically. So tell me. What's the purpose of "equality" if you're "equality" is entirely dependent on making choices someone else decides you can make based on what's good for them? She basically wants women to cast of the chains of "patriarchy" and voluntarily lock themselves up with the chains of "feminism"

And I'm not putting "feminist" and "feminism" in quotes because I disagree with it, I'm putting it in quotes because I disagree with people who are clearly using a well intended ideology for their own personal gain.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 234

So let's think about this for a moment. Say you're "profile" is entirely dependent on how much harassment you get. If you didn't get any then you're a nobody everyone ignores, but if you get harassed it means talk shows, donations, UN hearings, etc.

IF that was the case, would you not play up the harassment you get? Keep in mind Anita was "being harassed" long before GamerGate was even a thing. GamerGate, made popular by the media it accused of being corrupt, simply gave her something, besides rando internet trolls we all deal with, to point a finger at. The only reason GamerGate keeps going is because people can't just let it go. It's gotten to a point where some people financially depend on it harassing them in order to keep patron donations coming in.

If you'd like to see it go away, then stop blaming everything on in.

And Anita isn't a critic, she's not a consumer of the medium and has no interest in improving it. She's not on the side of "gamers", she's an outside party that doesn't like people doing things she disapproves of. Ok, well she doesn't like people doing things Jonathan McIntosh disapproves of, she's just the mouth piece because no one would take McIntosh seriously as a feminist without a female to use as a shield for ACTUAL criticism of his ideas.

With her it's easy to shift the focus of, "Man, that guy's an idiot" to "STOP ATTACKING WOMEN!!", seriously go see how well his "25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male" was received. The response videos are hilarious, and note all of the response videos I linked are from actual female gamers.

Comment Re:Kinda dissagree (Score 1) 234

What a horrible strawman.

It was the same dumb argument when Jack Thompson made it, it's the same dumb argument now, whether it's feminist supporting it or not.

I'm not even anti-feminist, but being a feminist doesn't automatically make you a good person, or right. Jack was proven wrong and mocked, Anita is proven wrong and, oh wait can't mock her because feminism. You're not doing anyone on the line about feminism any favors. From a neutral perspective, on feminism, I'd rather be called a misogynist and a "GamerGate type" then to associate with people who illogically strawman and demonize anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%.

Comment Re:Kinda dissagree (Score 1) 234

This is just the new claim, video games are addictive and ruin lives.

First they claimed games lead to satanism, then they claimed games caused people to be violent, lately it's been games cause people to be sexists, and they've been proven wrong over and over again. "Games are addictive" is just the latest iteration for busy bodies that have too much time on their hands and have a need to butt into other people's business. I'm sure when people start looking into it they'll find that, if it wasn't games, people with addictive personalities would just become addicted to something else. Then these people will probably move on to claiming games cause you to hate puppies.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge