Then there are the regions of the web associated with nerd stuff (gaming, fantasy fiction, etc), which have become a toxic battleground of identity politics, with many sites becoming homogeneous echo-chambers representing equally obnoxious factions.
Yes Gamer-Gaters really have ruined the internet, haven't they?
Eg. any "Alberta Proud" or "Albertans Against Syrian Refugees" or similar page where people get to put their xenophobia on public display.
I rarely encounter any of that stuff. I'm a liberal. My friends and family are liberal. I hang out on sites that are mainly frequented by other liberals. Where I do come across right-wing xenophobia (in Globe and Mail comments, for example), I don't hesitate to call it out. I call out dogmatic idiocy wherever I see it, and I happen to come across a lot more left-wing idiocy. It's also pretty clear to me that the cultural right is in retreat, while their counterparts on the left are in the ascendency, and starting to take on many of the same oppressive and intolerant traits of their opponents.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I rarely encounter any of that stuff. I'm a liberal. My friends and family are liberal. I hang out on sites that are mainly frequented by other liberals. Where I do come across right-wing xenophobia (in Globe and Mail comments, for example), I don't hesitate to call it out. I call out dogmatic idiocy wherever I see it, and I happen to come across a lot more left-wing idiocy. It's also pretty clear to me that the cultural right is in retreat, while their counterparts on the left are in the ascendency, and starting to take on many of the same oppressive and intolerant traits of their opponents.
You obviously have no oil industry (rigger or exec) types on Facebook then. I am inundated with this stuff with equal frequency to the "Love Mother Gaia" and "March Against Monsanto" garbage I get from the hippies.
It's nice to have a good idea what both sides believe however.
This story had a lot play on the CBC this morning. They spoke to a Professor from the War College in Washington (author of a book called "Militant Islam in Southeast Asia", and one commentator who used the phrase "Islamic extremists" numerous times. They showed plenty of b-roll type footage of members of the organization that murdered this man. Non-white guys with guns, all of them. They didn't cover up the non-whiteness. Didn't even mention it. The only mention about Western governments being responsible was "we aren't doing enough to stop these people", which is "blaming the West", in a way.
It's the biggest story on the national news. The "we ignore violence perpetrated by non white people" angle hasn't come up at all. I guess because they aren't ignoring it.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
This story had a lot play on the CBC this morning. They spoke to a Professor from the War College in Washington (author of a book called "Militant Islam in Southeast Asia", and one commentator who used the phrase "Islamic extremists" numerous times. They showed plenty of b-roll type footage of members of the organization that murdered this man. Non-white guys with guns, all of them. They didn't cover up the non-whiteness. Didn't even mention it. The only mention about Western governments being responsible was "we aren't doing enough to stop these people", which is "blaming the West", in a way.
It's the biggest story on the national news. The "we ignore violence perpetrated by non white people" angle hasn't come up at all. I guess because they aren't ignoring it.
I think it gets less of a response because it's a bunch of dicks in the backwoods kidnapping people for money, they'd still be doing it whether they were Muslims claiming ISIS affiliation or not, therefore we tend to view it like the occasional tourist that gets killed in Mexico, it's terrible but that's about all.
It also probably indicates that the public is becoming jaded with being told every single ######bag brown guy is working for ISIS in order to keep up support for what ever our lords and masters have planned.
It's not just twitter (which I don't follow). Mainstream media outlets like the CBC, Globe & Mail, and the Guardian all give prominent platforms to reflexively anti-Western ideologues of the identity-politics left.
I actually do make a distinction here when it comes to news outlets of this sort that publish editorials. I don't have any issue with media outlets giving a platform to views I disagree with. The issue is when engaging with those views and talking about why they shouldn't be held is deemed immoral. But that's a whole other topic. I agree that they tend to put up more ill-considered commentary than perhaps I'd like, but hey, even the Guardian does have the counterpoint from time to time: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...against-it-too
Note that I'm not talking about pseudo-news outlets like Salon or Gawker; I consider those to basically be twitter without a character limit.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I mean, if you've followed this thing at all and don't realize that both sides of this fight are toxic as #### that feed off each other. I dunno, man. If you actively feel either side of that has a high ground, you're actually part of the problem there.
Both sides end up frothing at the mouth on a regular basis over something trolls do just to incite both sides. They sit there blaming each other and ruining fandoms and sites with their cries of white male oppression and EssJayDoubleyous going back and forth.
Cliff is right, they're different sides of the same coin, and only they don't seem to realize that.
I mean, if you've followed this thing at all and don't realize that both sides of this fight are toxic as #### that feed off each other. I dunno, man. If you actively feel either side of that has a high ground, you're actually part of the problem there.
Both sides end up frothing at the mouth on a regular basis over something trolls do just to incite both sides. They sit there blaming each other and ruining fandoms and sites with their cries of white male oppression and EssJayDoubleyous going back and forth.
Cliff is right, they're different sides of the same coin, and only they don't seem to realize that.
I'm pretty sure the doxxing/SWATing and death/rape threats were only being tossed by one side.
I'm pretty sure the doxxing/SWATing and death/rape threats were only being tossed by one side.
Actually, most of that stuff is coming from trolls who have no vested interest in anything whatsoever. It's what makes this so ridiculous. But, obviously some of this stuff is coming from legitimate believers in this almost dogmatic fight, but it really isn't going just one way.
If you really, really believe that then I don't know what to tell you. What I suggest you do is look into someone named Randi Harper an anti-gamergator who is on record doxxing people and getting twitter followers to go after them or telling people to kill themselves while claiming to be anti-harassment. Or look into Shoe0nhead or even Lauren Southern, who are females who side with "gamergators." For some reason I don't think the people who agreed with them are the ones threatening to rape or murder them.
The concept that either side in this fight is innocent or a victim is ridiculous.
__________________
THANK MR DEMKO
CPHL Ottawa Vancouver
The Following User Says Thank You to Blaster86 For This Useful Post:
What the hell is gamergate? I feel so out of touch at times.
Here's from the "pro-game-industry, feminist, this is all cyber-bullying" side of things.
Here's the story from the "we're not sexist, you're unethical, now just let us play our damn games" side of things.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 04-26-2016 at 10:16 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Here's the story from the "we're not sexist, you're unethical, now just let us play our damn games" side of things.
"All feminists are lesbians now" and "all feminists are against nudity." I don't know if this guy is just trying to be provocative or if he just lacks any semblance of nuance.
It's the latter, he's basically a troll. Supports Trump just because he likes to see the left respond apoplectically to the things he says, is gay but claims being gay is a choice, etc. etc. Though to be fair the specific feminists he's talking about there are generally against nudity in media for reasons of objectification.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It's the latter, he's basically a troll. Supports Trump just because he likes to see the left respond apoplectically to the things he says, is gay but claims being gay is a choice, etc. etc. Though to be fair the specific feminists he's talking about there are generally against nudity in media for reasons of objectification.
Yeah, it's too bad he's such a ###### because he actually made a couple of decent points. I agree that video games themselves aren't likely making people sexist, or at least the nudity/objectification isn't. There are likely some issues with the ways in which all many film/TV/game narratives tend emphasize women as rewards, which I could see being linked to entitlement among men, and all of the consequences that are entailed within that, but I tend to see art (if you want to classify video games) as influenced by society and not the other way around.
That's sort of his thing, 15% totally dead on and well put; 85% trolling and saying ridiculous and outrageous things to get a reaction. Which he does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86uGGkkycg
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Milo is the avatar of everything that is wrong with Gamergate. The hit pieces he wrote on some the anti people were disgusting hack jobs. He has no real focus on the ethics issue in games journalism, instead, he saw it as an opportunity to create and audience for himself. He was a big reason the whole gamergate thing has next to nothing to do with games anymore and instead focuses on social justice issues and comes off as a right wing conservative hate mob.
Milo is the avatar of everything that is wrong with Gamergate. The hit pieces he wrote on some the anti people were disgusting hack jobs. He has no real focus on the ethics issue in games journalism, instead, he saw it as an opportunity to create and audience for himself. He was a big reason the whole gamergate thing has next to nothing to do with games anymore and instead focuses on social justice issues and comes off as a right wing conservative hate mob.
I watched a couple of his videos and I don't really understand why people give him the time of day. He claims to be provocateur but I think he's just a narcissist. Good provocateurs understand subtlety.
I watched a couple of his videos and I don't really understand why people give him the time of day. He claims to be provocateur but I think he's just a narcissist. Good provocateurs understand subtlety.
Well, you watched a couple of his videos, and you're by no means someone who should care about what he says, so that's a success of sorts right there. I don't really know if you can say he's not a good provocateur; if you think the purpose of what he does is to provoke a reaction, he's really very good at it because people seem to absolutely lose their minds when he has a talk. Just watch this if you can manage to get through it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANgl54duC0A
Can you imagine anyone more completely personifying his entire point about the state of affairs on campus? He arises in my twitter feed whenever he does one of these events because something absurd always seems to happen.
From where I sit and my interests his popularity poses the interesting question as to whether, irrespective of the content, there's some value to the concept of free expression for someone to constantly be pushing the limits of what expression is socially acceptable. I'm somewhat agnostic on that question. His answer would probably be that it demonstrates, "look, I can say this stuff you think is so horrifying, and nothing bad happens". I'm not sure that, to the extent the content is intellectually dishonest, it isn't counter-productive.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
