Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Why is there such a lack of diversity, though? (Score 1) 84

Except what that turns into is creep socially awkward white guys falsely praising and licking boots of women and minorities that join their projects while abusing other white guys (and white women apparently). It might sound like fun and games on paper, but obviously a lot of women and minorities see though that and aren't contributing to those projects. They want to be commended on their contributions, not based on what's between their legs or the colour of their skin, which no one knows or cares about unless you the type of person to make a big deal out of it.

Feel free to dump on my analysts all you like, I'm perfectly willing to accept I could be wrong, but the facts don't lie. Projects that are making a big deal out of race and gender are some of the most uniformly white male projects there are.

I guess another options is the people on these projects are much more abusive to women and minorities, which drove them all away in the first place, so they feel there's a need to give special treatment because they are, in fact, assholes.

Comment Re:Why is there such a lack of diversity, though? (Score 1) 84

It's because real programmers like to be praised for their merit, ability and contributions. Not made to feel like their contributions are only being accepted based on the colour of their skin or gender identity. When a project makes a big deal out of being "diverse" what they're telling women and minorities is they aren't welcome because they're talented and have valid contributions to make. They're being told they're a token to make creepy socially awkward self-flagellating white males feel less guilty for being white males.

It's disgusting on so many levels.

Comment Re:Social Justice Movement (Score 1) 139

My understanding here is this is the "real deal" social justice, as in trying to make things better for people who are ACTUALLY oppressed. Not whiny culture critic hipsters who lie to support their non-issues then cry in front of the UN because people call them liars on twitter and call it "social justice" because the white-menz have all the powerz.

It's a shame so many of these first world problem people are ruining things for actual activist that can see real disparity and abuse is happening in third world countries and not video games or sci-fi books.

Comment Re:The unmarried speak... (Score 1) 622

Going back and re-reading what I said now, makes it feel like I was criticizing him. In truth, I didn't get a lot of time with him when I was really young and I joke, but I wouldn't have it any other way. He struggled and didn't have much, but he always gave us what he had. Having him come over and just drink and watch a movie is one of the activities I enjoy the most. He had it worse than a lot of people his whole life and still put everyone else before himself. His parents, his siblings, my mother, then my step-mother, his kids, and even my siblings that weren't his kids. Unlike my mother who always put herself first to the point she drove her own parents, siblings, three spouses and her kids. She's alone and miserable and poor. Even if he is poor, he's surrounded by people that can't get enough of him and would give him the shirts off their backs. Speaks volumes for how to properly live your life. Value others and others will value you.

Besides, he never criticizes the beer.

Comment Re:The unmarried speak... (Score 1) 622

It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important to you.

I don't know, you can still take their input and consider it important, but just ignore it because it goes against what you want to do with your things. I think it's a bit heavy handed to say it shouldn't be important. I'd still ask my wife out of courtesy and to get her perspective if I was going to do something drastic, she might have some useful insight. If she flat out said no or didn't have any useful input such as, "why just one? Two horns would be louder.", I'd likely take her protest into consideration, but would do what I wanted anyway.

I'm also married (only the one time over 8 years to a women I've known for a total of 15). The dynamics of anyone's relationship is really their own business and if it's working for them no one should judge.

We keep our finances separate and divided the bills up more or less evenly so whatever is left over is our individual spending money. I bought myself a car, outside of the regular bills, almost 10 years ago and I let her use it. She's only complained to me once because she wanted to take it to her parents place for the weekend, which would have left me stranded on a weekend where I had a ton of things to do. She told me I could take the metro bus around town, which I wasn't particularly happy with, and a little angry she even made the suggestion. It would have required two days to do an afternoon's running around. Not to mention the difficulty of transporting things, including lumber, or having to run out on the spot if I was missing something. There was some discussion about it that got heated and nearly ended with her losing all driving privileges. We "compromised" and she got a two-way bus ticket so she could go to her parents and I'd have the car. The compromise was I'd let her keep using the car if I didn't need it.

Every now and then I remind her the car is getting up in age and we'll have to get another one. I've been saving knowing it's coming and don't need her help to pay for it, but I give her the option so she'd have more of a say in how it's used. She's happy enough with the arrangement and knows unless she pitches in for it there's no expectation she'll just get to take off with it whenever she likes. I know it sounds like a harsh arrangement or that I don't respect my wife, but that's not the case. We get along great, real couples know marriage is a team effort, but that doesn't mean you have to let your spouse call all the plays all the time and you shouldn't just let them walk all over you. She gets to win her share of the battles too.

most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own.

This part I agree with, but it's not exclusive to women. Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them. But I'm compensated with the company and entertainment, which is really the same thing with marriage, except there's sex too.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 239

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) 239

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) 239

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) 239

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) 239

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) 239

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) 239

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.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 669

One of those, "speak of the devil" moments. I just stumbled on to this medium post.

Apparently at the end of last month people started asking to remove Yukihiro Matsumoto (creator of Ruby) from the "community management" side of it's development. And guess who's involved? Coraline Ada Ehmke, the same person that pushed for the CoC to be included in the Opal project. And her friend Kurtis, who was the troll that started the transphobic accusation with Elia Schito (Opal Maintainer).

No one can seriously tell me these aren't dubious circumstances.

Slashdot Top Deals

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada