Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

+ - Why do Anti-GamerGaters Make Horrible Games?->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Zoe Quinn with Depression Quest, a game she had to allegedly sleep around to get favourable reviews and eventually greenlight on Steam. Brianna Wu's Revolution 60, a misogynistic game with over-sexualised characters (which goes against every current critic of Anita Sarkeesian against game that don't incorporate her narrative). Depression Quest is a text-box and click on pictures "game" (if it's even that?) and Revolution 60 looks like a school project which uses Playstation 1 texture, perhaps a game from mid-90s. Do these self proclaimed game makers have any skills in this industry or just loud mouths and empty on the inside? What is their end goal?"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score 2) 645

It has to do with FOX, and their motivation for showing the whole thing. What is their purpose in showing any portion of the clip, and what is their purpose in showing the whole thing?

Motivated by clicks, ads, and profits. But that motivation doesn't change even if they didn't show any of the video.

If you say that 30 seconds is the same as the whole thing, then you truly don't understand ISIS and you truly don't understand evil.

I understand fine enough. I think I mistyped in my previous response and missed a "not" (stupid negations), sorry. I meant to say that showing only 30 seconds is not the same thing as the 22 minute because "Fox is not deciding what is the most important part to see. Is it the actual murder? Or the response from the people in the streets (even if coerced)? Better to see propaganda for what it is then what someone else thinks is the important message."

All I am saying is that if you are going to show something abhorrent, give people the choice and let them see it all for themselves. Do not cut it up, censor it, alter it, w/e (translation would have been good). Especially if it is propaganda because the best propaganda is the kind that you are unaware of it being propaganda. Show it all or show none.

They are terrorists, and by showing the whole video and whipping people up into a frothy argument,

Yes, it will whip people in to a frothy argument (sorry if I came off that way). Does that mean we should not see pictures of the concentration camps, or is it okay because it was a generation ago? Should we not see planes fly into towers or it that okay because you couldn't see the terror on peoples faces? It will invoke strong emotions. We as a society have to manage our emotional responses to ensure they do not get the best of us. But that does not mean that we should forgo the responsibility of knowing the world we live in because we are emotionally ill-equipped to handle the reality of the world that we create and take part of.

Fox has played directly into their hands. As another commenter above has stated, Fox is practically the marketing department for ISIS now.

That is the same reason why liveleak banned the ISIS account. They didn't want to be the marketing arm of ISIS. However, I disagree with this. Liveleak and Fox are not directly helping or supporting ISIS by giving people access to information or disseminating their propaganda. Just like Wikipedia does not support or help the Nazis for giving information about Nazism.

Good journalism will show people what they do not want to see.

Comment: Re:No (Score 4, Interesting) 645

It serves no journalistic purpose. "legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video" very broadly misses the point. They don't need to show it any more than they need to show Mexican gang executions. It's lazy sensationalism meant to draw as many eyeballs as possible.

And what is the prevailing view of the drug war in Mexico? Most Americans are far away detached, aside from a few border towns whose sheriff gets shot. Maybe if the news did show the Mexican drug cartels who behead entire towns we would do something to help. http://america.aljazeera.com/o...

The Journalistic purpose is the same reason why there were so many pictures taken of the concentration camps when the allies liberated them. Lets not be ignorant of the world we live in. The news is ment to inform us.

As it stands now, Fox gave you a choice. Many people have died so that we can have a choice. Let's not denigrate their memory by obstructing the choices we have because you feel it is "lazy sensationalism".

Comment: Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score 4, Insightful) 645

and seeing a short clip of it isn't proof enough to stir up the national outrage to finally put a stop to it, no amount of video will.

How many videos did it take for Jordans outrage? Do you include the videos that murdered citizens from other countries? You have exactly what you describe, a short clip that caused a national outrage. Or do you think that flooding the internet with American and Japanese journalist beheadings would swing Jordanian politics to "earth shaking response"?

Fox showing the whole 22 minute clip is the same as showing the 30 seconds of screaming as a man is burned alive. They are giving you the choice to watch it all, in part, or none. I think, giving the audience the whole clip is better than only the 30 seconds because Fox is not deciding what is the most important part to see. Is it the actual murder? Or the response from the people in the streets (even if coerced)? Better to see propaganda for what it is then what someone else thinks is the important message.

Comment: Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score 3, Insightful) 645

War has rules.

The only rule to war is to win. Rules of war are there because we have to live with ourselves and our opponent after the war.

Better to think of the conquered/conquerer as gentlemen than a savage. Savagery begets savagery.

Comment: Re:"equal treatment" (Score 1, Offtopic) 779

by penandpaper (#48960927) Attached to: WA Bill Takes Aim at Boys' Dominance In Computer Classes

I do have a issue with how's its been pushed on the country via the courts rather then referendums. As we saw with Roe v Wade, when a divisive social issue of this magnitude is decided by the courts before the popular support is there, it stays divisive. Unfortunately, that's what will happen w/ gay marriage.

But isn't that one of the roles of the judicial branch? If there is popular support for Jim Crow laws, the courts can throw those laws out usually with a judicial precedent (or setting one from a law). The people have power to vote for law makers. But that doesn't mean the laws created by the legislature will be inline with the constitution or other higher state laws (state constitution).

It isn't perfect but what is the alternative? The popular vote (whether direct or legislature) decides on all laws and issues? It seems, on various issues, the judiciary intervenes primarily on divisive topics ending the division (not for the public in discussion but for legal purposes and affected laws).

If you wanted to overturn some judicial precedent you can through a higher law. (state to overturn city, constitutional to overturn court)... It is slow and takes a lot of support and time... but that is the point. If a topic continues to be devisive to the point the courts get involved... I might be best to remove that from the legislature until enough people change their mind and it becomes the majority enough to change a higher law. (see Prohibition)

It is a subtle check and balance in our government that I think is a good thing. Really, when you say it forces people and states to accept a certain law or interpretation. What you are really complaining about is that to overturn that decision, it takes longer, more time, and more people to get your way on a divisive issue.

Comment: Re:No way! (Score 1) 514

Everyone in the developed world thinks it's common sense to restrict access to firearms. Not the USA - That's Theft of Freedom.

When the right to have access to firearms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment (e.g. the right to firearms is second ONLY TO SPEECH) then restricting it is "theft of freedom" in exaggerated words.

Think about it, the bill of rights in the first two amendments basically say. You can saw what you want* and defend yourself to say it.**

* obviously there are exceptions, e.g. yelling fire
** The definition of arms may be contentions but no one argues the right to defend oneself.

Documentation is the castor oil of programming. Managers know it must be good because the programmers hate it so much.

Working...