http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1

&

http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/kotaku-and-zoe-quinn-acc used-of-exchanging-positive-press-for-sex/

Phil Fish makes everything more entertaining.

Drama is worth a five! Also, Depression Quest sounds horrible. Does anyone have a Your Indie Game is Bad and You Should Feel Bad thing?

I went on a few okcupid dates with zoe quinn like a year and a half ago. She isn't like a bad person this shit storm is really stupid.

One thing I can say I've learned from her is that any sort of internet celebrity should be avoided at all cost because jesus there are some obsessive maniacs out there

You worked for EA, didn't you?

Refund me those donuts, you bastard.

EA treats their employees like shit too.

Those more evil companies are nowhere near as large and omnipresent either. Easier to hit the biggest target

Koch industries, BP, Exxon, Chevron: not as large or omnipresent as a videogame publishing company.

Does the average gamer (or American for that matter) know anything about them besides which one has cheaper gas?

Solro, I'm pretty sure that's the point Magnesium was making.

NO! ITS MY POINT!!!!1!


What I mean is, EA does it's best to get into everyone's living room and then takes a shit on them. And the funny thing is, taking the shit doesn't make them much money. They'd make just as much money, if not more, if they didn't shit on their customers.

It's not specifically related to gamers being entitled or whatever, it's a problem of being very visible and doing stupid shit while everyone is watching. (and having bad PR people)

I think people are more outraged at the fact that she slept with a bunch of people behind her then-boyfriend's back, rather than her making a game.

"Closet case." Homophobic. "Hugbox." Ableist. Check your priv

"I'm sorry you closet-case neckbeards are angry that Zoe Quinn made a game and is a girl."

1. Neckbeard? Guilty as charged. Closet Case? Nope, I post plenty of T&A. Shame it doesn't get upvoted...

2. Yes, Zoe has ovaries & made a game. I upvoted it on Greenlight after I thought she'd been attacked by trolls. Ha ha. Turns out she was lying. About lots of things. I hate being deceived.


"Maybe grow the fuck up and go back into your DOTA hugbox."

Do you even MOBA?

All kidding aside, I hate censorship, hypocrisy & SJWs.

I don't when this place became a sub forum of Jezebel, but DMCA copyright claims aren't the way to deal with opposing viewpoints. Tldr; Zoe's crazy & is bad for the Indie Scene.

Just pretend they're all clones.

Though there are stories floating around how Zoe does pull shitty ruining SJW antics on others. I have no idea how true this claim is:

http://i.imgur.com/Gy2n50g.png

I read over the entire blog. He states that he went public with this to save her other potential partners the same heartache and burning, as Zoe Quinn appears to have deep-seated psychological issues she's either unable or unwilling to get treated. As to whether this justifies the obsessive cataloging I will say no, because the Internet is too public of a bus to throw someone under no matter how shitty of a human being they are.

Still, it was interesting to read this and compare it to the "don't let evil men get you down, you go girl!" back patting from Sarkeesian and others of the same Internet ilk.

Did you miss your nap or something?

I don't take naps. Naps are for girls.

>>when its Anita Sarkeesian baseless claims bullshit,

Anita Sarkeesian's videos are basically opinion pieces, and opinion pieces don't need as much documentation as accusations of actual wrongdoing that effect the lives of strangers and stories we can't really know. You either know this, DQL, or you're a lot dumber than I took you for.

>>but when its a legitimate examination of the gaming press, complete with evidence behind it you're all like "pff, video game drama, what children. *eyeroll* Lets one star it into oblivion."

I don't know what evidence there is besides a wrathful blogpost from an ex-lover, but here's two paragraphs from an editorial. I can't vouch for the facts given, but the ones about what was published should be easy to check.

http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times- about-a-pos-1624707346

>>On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.

>>Given the information available to us both from Nathan and all sources presented online, I have no reason to believe any further action need be taken. The situation is fraught for all involved, including our readers, whose trust is paramount; inquiry is always welcome.

Hurm

Yeah, all the ensuing e drama aside, this guy is a little bitch.

Halfway through the post he writes something like PLEASE STOP HARRASING HER. THAT ISN'T WHAT I INTENDED; IT HELPS NO ONE. or words to that effect. He's shocked... SHOCKED that people responded in this way.

Any woman who ever touches this guy's dick ever again is even dumber than he is.

Also, Five Guys makes some of the finest burgers and fries on the East Coast, and they do not deserve to have their good named dragged into this.

Here's your sense of entitlement, or maybe it's just a fucked up sense of priorities, or maybe it's just being a sociopath: A comment from an article i found

http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/40232405

>>Death threats via Twitter aren't a big deal.

>>All they've done is deflect the argument away from the real problem at hand, the evident corruption that lies at the heart of video games journalism.

And there you have it. Here's where (some of) these gamer shitbags can eat a bag of cool ranch flavored flavored dicks.

Anita Sarkeesian reported in her TED talk that when gamers talked about silencing her, they called it "the game" The attitude is that threatening someone's life is a game, any real or perceived threat to the game (someone criticizes it in a youtube video) is a threat to my life. This really goes beyond misogyny, it's more like losing touch with reality.

The big problem with those reactions, death threats included, is that these particular hacks can hide behind them whenever any sort of criticism is leveled against them or what they're doing. Hell, you're doing it for them right now.

You gigantic sap.

I'm also going to restate that Five Guys does not deserve this kind of publicity.

Five Guys makes good burgers, if you're in the mood for moderately priced chainjoint burgers. However, there are definitely better burger places on the East Coast.

(I am very partial to Ted's Restaurant in Meriden, famous for its Steamed Hams (which are actually steamed, not grilled). Louis' Lunch, near Yale, is also very good, but a little pricier and a lot more pretentious.)

While looking up Elevation Burger, I was quite surprised to discover that they have several locations in the Middle East.

Anyway, Elevation makes a decent burger, too. Not so much the fries, though.

That little "Reply" button is a real brain teaser for you, isn't it? Or did I just get you too upset to respond properly?

What you are so rabidly defending is exactly on the same level as Fox News and its ilk, only with a different flavor of self-serving bullshit coating it.

Only babies eat hot dogs.

>>What you are so rabidly defending is exactly on the same level as Fox News and its ilk, only with a different flavor of self-serving bullshit coating it.

Actually, when I say "Fuck you, you littlle sociopath." I'm not defending anyone. I'm attacking YOU. If there's anything else you need explained, please don't hesitate to let me know.

>>Only babies eat hot dogs.

Said the little boy who didn't like anyone talking smack about his toys.

You know, this is fun, but on some level, I agree with you. Harassment, threats, and over-the-top vilification do interfere with thoughtful legitimate criticism, and that's a shame. It occurs to me, Nocturno, that you're probably stupid enough that you assume that I don't think any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian's boring, pedantic videos is valid. It's just that, not being a sociopath, I care more about actual people, their safety, security, and basic rights.

What makes you such an asshole isn't that you want to criticize Sarkeesian, it's that you don't have enough sense to blame the death threateners for fucking things up, and instead you blame the people who oppose death threats. Too bad. I don't think we're going to make a lot of progress.

Once again, Mr Holmes, there's a difference between death threats and death threats. If you can't tell the difference between legitimate, credible threats, and innocent smack talking, then you're part of the problem. You're promoting a culture of fear and over-reaction, which, ironically, does have serious, sometimes deadly, real-world consequences - such as the militarization of our police force, and the rather insane idea that SWAT teams can be called on ten year old gamers, with no other reaction than "Whoops, our bad".

Nobody is in favor of death threats. What people are, is opposed to hyperbole and histrionic fear-mongering.

By the way, happy 9/11!

Any way you want to try to frame it, it's still just self-righteous blowhards (like you) masturbating their egos in the most graceless way possible.

http://tinyurl.com/muhdps3

>>Once again, Mr Holmes, there's a difference between death threats and death threats. If you can't tell the difference between legitimate, credible threats, and innocent smack talking, then you're part of the problem.

Fuck you, Homer. There's no such thing as a "legitimate" death threat, and there's no such thing as an "innocent" death threat. Nobody's thretening me, so my ability to discern is not an issue, but nobody should have to take up their mental space with sorting out who wants the kill them and who doesn't.

>>Any way you want to try to frame it, it's still just self-righteous blowhards (like you) masturbating their egos in the most graceless way possible.

Yeah, that's right, this is all about ME. You are dumber than a box of dirt.

>>nobody should have to take up their mental space with sorting out who wants the kill them and who doesn't.

You know, Mr Holmes, most people don't have that problem. Not because they never get threatened, but because they've got enough street smarts and common sense to know the difference between credible threats and imaginary ones. If *you* don't, then that's not our problem; it's yours.

Question: were you always like this? Or is this one of those cases where, as the old man sinks into senility, he becomes irrationally terrified of all the neighborhood teenagers, with their leather jackets and loud rock n roll?

For example, you just said "Fuck you, Homer".

To me, that sounds like a rape threat. You want me to get fucked, against my will. Now, I shouldn't have to take up my mental space sorting out who wants me to get raped and who doesn't, but we're going to go by your standards and just assume that this threat, any threat, is both credible and actionable.

So what should we do to you, Mr Holmes? You're clearly a threat to our safety and security.

>>You know, Mr Holmes, most people don't have that problem. Not because they never get threatened, but because they've got enough street smarts and common sense to know the difference between credible threats and imaginary ones. If *you* don't, then that's not our problem; it's yours.

>>Question: were you always like this?

Homer, EVERYONE is like this! We've had this discussion before, and I remember how naively simple-minded and extreme you were about this, and I also remember that you were firmly in the minority. A death threat is not a legitimate form of discourse. It's not witty banter, It's not a joke, and it's not constitutionally protected speech.

It's a crime. I know you don't agree with it being a crime, but it totally fucking is.

>>For example, you just said "Fuck you, Homer".

>>To me, that sounds like a rape threat. You want me to get fucked, against my will. Now, I shouldn't have to take up my mental space sorting out who wants me to get raped and who doesn't, but we're going to go by your standards and just assume that this threat, any threat, is both credible and actionable.

>>So what should we do to you, Mr Holmes? You're clearly a threat to our safety and security.

You should suck my dick.

Oh, no! John Holmes got so angry, that he forgot to check his privilege!

At least he figured out how to use the site's reply function properly.

More rape threats. Credibler and credibler.

Have you been playing video games?


>>A death threat is not a legitimate form of discourse. It's not witty banter, It's not a joke, and it's not constitutionally protected speech.

"Wit" has never been a metric used to determine what speech is protected. And actually, Mr Holmes, threats often ARE constitutionally protected! Threats are only considered unprotected if they are deemed to be "true threats". Hence why you're being dumb.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/rothman.htm

Again, people like you are a huge part of this growing problem, and unless you'd like to turn yourself in to the authorities for posting rape threats online (NOT LEGITIMATE DISCOURSE), then in the name of consistency and intellectual honesty, you must re-evalaute your commitment to the hyper-modern principle of "security over freedom".

>>Again, people like you are a huge part of this growing problem, and unless you'd like to turn yourself in to the authorities for posting rape threats online (NOT LEGITIMATE DISCOURSE), then in the name of consistency and intellectual honesty, you must re-evalaute your commitment to the hyper-modern principle of "security over freedom".

"Hyper-modern?" It's like I'm watching you get more stupid.

This is not a recent development. Issuing threats has always been a crime. You don't have the "freedom" to break into other people's houses, either.

>>Because "Fuck You" is a rape threat.

http://youtu.be/hLEG9QYyuUY

>>Oh, no! John Holmes got so angry, that he forgot to check his privilege!

Oh, No! Caminante Nocturno got so angry he's resorting to Evil Homer's lame-ass tactics!

http://youtu.be/hLEG9QYyuUY







>>

>>Issuing threats has always been a crime.

No, it hasn't. John, we literally just discussed this! Olde literally! I know short-term memory loss is common amongst people like you, but please, focus. Under constitutional law, only true, credible threats are considered a crime.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/rothman.htm

You can call the law stupid all you want, it's not going to change the facts.

Now please stop rape-threatening me or I will call the internet police on you. And they will arrest you and throw you in prison, just as they have done to everyone who's ever said anything mean to you on Youtube.

John Holmes Motherfucker
Homer, you keep talking to me about "innocent smack talk" without providing any examples, or applying it to anything anybody is saying. We're talking about death threats. There is such a thing as innocent smack talk. There's no such thing as innocent death threats.

Somebody posted a message to Anita Sarkeesian saying that he would kill her and rape her corpse with a metal pipe. Now, are you claiming that is innocent smack talk? Because if you are, you are wrong and you should STFU. If you're NOT claiming that's innocent smack talk, then the concept of "innocent smack talk" is not relevant, and you should STFU anyway.

I miss Roachbud

Free peanuts & the massive amount of fries makes up for that.

Well, now you're threatening to break into people's homes AND threatening destruction of property. You're racking up a pretty mean rapsheet here, John. You'll be looking at twenty to life. Hope you've got a good lawyer.

Homer, you keep talking to me about "innocent smack talk" without providing any examples, or applying it to anything anybody is saying. We're talking about death threats. There is such a thing as innocent smack talk. There's no such thing as innocent death threats.

Somebody posted a message to Anita Sarkeesian saying that he would kill her and rape her corpse with a metal pipe. Now, are you claiming that is innocent smack talk? Because if you are, you are wrong and you should STFU. If you're NOT claiming that's innocent smack talk, then the concept of "innocent smack talk" is not relevant, and you should STFU anyway.

Thank you for keeping this thread alive.

You're welcome, but I meant to post that in another thread. I just came back here to find out who had said that the reply button was a brain teaser for me.