The Zoe Quinn "Scandal"

I believe in equality. Just real equality. Not fairy tale homogeny. And it is the stone-cold realism of economists that allows that to flourish, that is why it is relevant. Innovation in industry freed the slaves, not abolitionists. Innovations in housekeeping and appliances (and birth control) opened up the world for women, not feminists. Innovations in the labor market allow immigrants and minorities to prosper, not social justice warriors. A fact so incredibly obvious that even more extreme leftists than you don't even attempt to deny it, just ask Robert Reich and Paul Krugman. Long story short, your fascist self-righteous overconfidence is an infinitely greater threat to the freedom and equality you want than you can even begin to fathom, as usual for a leftist. No wonder you fucks can't predict a fuckin' thing and are all confused and offended when people ask if your methods have been working for the past few decades.

... I'll take that as a "no" to my question then. Fair enough I suppose.

I just gave you the one reliable, consistent way to bring about the change you want, and you either can't handle it or can't comprehend so you dismiss it. You, and the people like you, are the number one enemies of progress at this time in history.

Oh no, I fully agree that innovation through market freedom breeds change. Its just not relevant to the question I asked you two posts ago.

Also, the number one enemy of progress is the anti-science anti-women pro-war Republican lead House America just elected. Also, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

I could give another witty response to you using facts and destroy you utterly as usual. But, like I said, I'm just gonna let you rot in the poverty and obscurity of your own design. I'll go my way, you go yours. We'll meet up in another four years and see how things are going, like we've done with your 2010 predictions. Given your track record, science and women in peaceful Republican America will prosper greatly over the next four years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

I could give another witty response to you using facts and destroy you utterly as usual. But, like I said, I'm just gonna let you rot in the poverty and obscurity of your own design. I'll go my way, you go yours. We'll meet up in another four years and see how things are going, like we've done with your 2010 predictions. Given your track record, science and women in peaceful Republican America will prosper greatly over the next four years.

---

What? I'm pretty sure I just said they won't prosper because of the anti-science anti-women pro-war Republican lead House America just elected. Which is a serious problem.

Whatever, your horse, much like rent, is too damn high.

Exactly. Just like when you said "America would collapse into a third world country and Europe and Canada would lead the world to a socialist utopia," and the exact opposite happened, I'm sure women and science do will well in America. I should probably put money on that. I mean, you're never going to have a more sure bet than being against you. You could make me millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

Exactly. Just like when you said "America would collapse into a third world country and Europe and Canada would lead the world to a socialist utopia," and the exact opposite happened, I'm sure women and science do will well in America. I should probably put money on that. I mean, you're never going to have a more sure bet than being against you. You could make me millions.

---

I never said collapse happens overnight. It didn't in the Roman Empire either. It starts with little things. Like, maybe electing an anti-science anti-women anti-middle class pro-war Republican lead House.

Anyway, I'm done here.

http://images.cryhavok.org/d/14710-1/Be+Excellent.gif

Actually, you did. You said that America "was done" and that the world then had to find a way to get out of the mess that America, according to you, single-handedly put the world into. The Chinese were going to eat everyone's lunch (Apparently, you missed Japan in the 80's) and Canada was going to be the new model. Now, the IMF is talking about America as the "primary driver of economic growth" and America's growth rates during the worst economic collapse since the great depression has been higher than Europe's average for the last six decades, and Canada is only doing slightly better. Canada has lost 25-30% of its purchasing power and the bubble hasn't even popped. That's just exchange rate fluctuations from the commodities market.

Hmmmm. The ability to abandon a model and to form a new instead of making excuses and giving it more time is what separates the boys from the men. And you are a small, prepubescent little boy.

TE: Money, regulation, Global Warming, Opinion? Go!

Oh, and Squibb, I just KNOOOOW you're going to do the right thing and donate the majority of your income to charities, right? Otherwise, you'd be a hypocrite, you know?

Quote:

---

TE: Money, regulation, Global Warming, Opinion? Go!

---

Money: Tastes good.

Regulation: Necessary evil to punish that pesky defective Y-chromosome.

Global Warming: Global Illuminati hoax to separate me from mah tastey greenbacks. (That's a joke, I'm no conspiracy theorist or global warming denier.)

Back on-topic, for you poor unfortunate bastards who care enough about feminism vs gaming enough to know this, I'm curious to know if a certain rumor I've heard is true. Everyone from the Amazing Atheist to others are picking up on this, so I assume it is, but I'm just wanting to make sure.

Is it true that, when asked for her input on Mirror's Edge 2, Anita Sarkeesian said that there needed to be a separate, easier control scheme for women, since, sexistly, Anita things women are too stupid for standard controls? Just wondering. I really, really don't care about this shit, but it'd give me a good laugh if true.

Although, I'm sure Squibb will find a way to say that this just demonstrates more misogyny in gaming. You read right, misogyny, not misandry.

...

I don't care.

Ive heard that rumor, or variations of it: ea hired her as a consultant, ea hired her to help develop mirror's edge 2. I don't know what to make of it, because the common element in her decisions had been raking money, racked up a ton of kickstarter money for her "budget" but only produced one new video pertaining to the theme female tropes in 2 years, instead she hops about giving speeches to universities (apparently for 3k a pop). Unless EA promised a generous fee (which would be a deathknell on the budget of mirror's edge) Anita probably is saying bullshit, but not actually doing any direct contribution to the game.

I've also heard the rumor. I took some interest beyond the initial burst of aspersion claims when Mr. Morhaim spoke about all the hate over at BlizzCon. That being said, both factions are quite destructive and basic reason seems to be impossible for them. Whether she said so or not is no longer important. Pink elephants and wolves are the only things these people are talking about. Someone might be doing this for real, but their relevance is little within this foolish chaos. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for; but, like Nissa, I don't care enough to find out.

Did a couple YT searches and now my main page is full of feminist garbage. But here was a spoof of it that I thought was funny. Thought I'd share it since I've been oppressed by its obtrusiveness and I thought someone should be lifted up sharing in my opression.

I don't think I can watch feminist stuff in anything but a parody setting. It's making me feel sick.

Why in the world are these feminists going on about transgender issues, capitalism, and race? Shouldn't they focus on their specific issue if they really do care about the plight of women? They're diluting their own message. Either that, or just trying to create their own groupthink.

^ This is why I don't follow anything that's strictly Feminist or Masculanist. These days they seem to harm their own causes rather than help them. There are lies from both sides. For example, either side will claim the other gender has a higher percentage of child abuse under its belt, even while some studies suggest the divide is practically 50/50. I said some studies because there are SO MANY STUDIES that say THIS or THAT that it's become difficult for me to believe ANY statistics any more, especially since the definition for parameters for may vary widely and wildly. Can't we all just get along? Jeez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions of Khas

Can't we all just get along? Jeez.

---

http://i-cms.linternaute.com/image_c...dent-clown.jpg

Nope.

Thank you, Squidward. I think of that scene every time I say that. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions of Khas

^ This is why I don't follow anything that's strictly Feminist or Masculanist. These days they seem to harm their own causes rather than help them. There are lies from both sides. For example, either side will claim the other gender has a higher percentage of child abuse under its belt, even while some studies suggest the divide is practically 50/50. I said some studies because there are SO MANY STUDIES that say THIS or THAT that it's become difficult for me to believe ANY statistics any more, especially since the definition for parameters for may vary widely and wildly. Can't we all just get along? Jeez.

---

....I have never once heard of a "masculinist", nor does it seem like they're the problem here. Feminists are clearly rage maniacs with an agenda on their mind.

Anyway, one thing I've noticed that's different between men and women is how they abuse their children. Women are far more likely to say ignorant things in public to their children ("I'm going to kill you, you're going to die early" -- no kidding, I heard that once from a woman) or possibly even spank their children in front of others. Men, when abusive, tend to do so in private.

Quote:

---

....I have never once heard of a "masculinist", nor does it seem like they're the problem here

---

I made the term up, but you understand what I'm talking about.

I'd argue that women are more likely to employ emotional abuse than men, but this is anecdotal and I haven't done the research on it, and Im more than willing to admit I'm wrong when confronted with new and reliable information. Both on this subject, and everything else.

Its old news women fight with words and men fight with fists.

Also, masculism is actually a thing, strangely enough. Its men fighting for equality in things that are seemingly biased towards women such as child custody, young driver insurance costs, and male genital mutilation (circumcision) being socially accepted in North America.

Quote:

---

Its old news women fight with words and men fight with fists.

---

Except women are still more likely to use their fists in a domestic altercation than men. The only difference is that men have the capability to do damage to the other, women usually don't.

Quote:

---

I said some studies because there are SO MANY STUDIES that say THIS or THAT that it's become difficult for me to believe ANY statistics any more, especially since the definition for parameters for may vary widely and wildly.

---

"There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics." - Mark Twain

If you ever want to be really annoyed by statistics, learn economics and then hear how people interpret data. *sigh*

Quote:

---

Also, masculism is actually a thing, strangely enough.

---

Pretty sure you're talking about Men's Rights Activists, not masculinists. I've never heard of any group call themselves masculinists. MRA's can be compared to animal rights activists or environmental activists in that they are people who have a specific interest in improving certains areas. The -ist in feminism, however, is more in line with other -isms and -ists, namely socialists and communists, in that it's an intellectual force with multitudes of viewpoints and pushers and they tend to be far more extreme and, like most academics, in their own little world, creating solutions to problems that don't exist or misrepresenting groups or situations. In effect, Nissa is right. There are no masculinists. The only time men get their problems taken seriously is when it is included with overall suffering of humankind as a whole. No one will ever give men a platform by which the can whine and drone on for hours about their problems. Never.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

No one will ever give men a platform by which they can whine and drone on for hours about their problems. Never.

---

I'm pretty sure you just described Fox News and the Republican National Convention.

Quote:

---

If you ever want to be really annoyed by statistics, learn economics and then hear how people interpret data. *sigh*

---

*whimper* ANY interpretation of data. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I'm pretty sure you just described Fox News and the Republican National Convention.

---

-10 logic points for labelling someone with a show they don't watch and a place they've never been instead of using logic.

Well, unless Econ has been to the RNC. It's just that that's the kind of labellism that stifles intellectual discourse and understanding. One side presents logic and facts (or at least a reasonable opinion) and then the other goes, "Well, you're a [label]", as if that makes the person's reasoned opinion mean nothing.

I also don't understand how circumcision is sexist. It's just Jewish tradition.

I also don't understand how female genital mutilation is sexist. It's just African tradition.

Let that one sink in, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I'm pretty sure you just described Fox News and the Republican National Convention.

---

Sounds like what someone would say if the only thing they've seen of Fox News is clips from YouTube. Considering the single most commonly spoken word I've heard on Fox News (admittedly, from clips) is about the "wussification of America" and how people should stop bitching, I'll just chalk this up to the same kind of stupidity that the Squibb is known for.

Quote:

---

*whimper* ANY interpretation of data.

---

Normally, I would agree. Except Economics is a field where everyone thinks they know better than the most brilliant economists even though they know nothing. Not that I'm brilliant, but everyone I bring up studying economics at a party or family get-together, the first words out of everyone's mouth is, "Did you know that the economy is going to go to shit in a hand-basket in three months? Yeah, those damn economists don't know what they're talking about." Cue historic growth rate of 5%. YouTube posters are even worse. Go to any YT video about economics and witness every single uneducated poster making wild assumptions and honestly believing that they are the only ones that know what they're talking that.

That kind of shit doesn't happen in other fields. Not even medicine when everyone just goes to WebMD. It's only comparible to politics, but everyone who lives has so knowledge about politics, not so with economics. Plus, I have yet to meet a person who did not horribly confuse economics (basically political science with a focus on the economy) with business or business management.

Quote:

---

I also don't understand how circumcision is sexist. It's just Jewish tradition.

---

It's not necessarily sexist, but its fucked up. Especially since the child has no say in the matter and the stated purpose of the act is to decrease sexual enjoyment and desire, as if God made men and only men extremely fucked up. However, what IS sexist is the way that people have no problem with doing it on men in their own country but then have a shit fit when its mentioned as happening to women in third-world countries. Like I said, men's problems, no matter how severe, are never taken seriously unless it includes the entirety of mankind, whereas women's problems, no matter how small, are usually taken seriously on at least some level.

But none of this shit matters and I feel like I'm getting dumber just talking about it. Back towards furthering my aspirations of becoming the master of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nissa

-10 logic points for labelling someone with a show they don't watch and a place they've never been instead of using logic.

---

How exactly did you take me pointing out that Fox News and the RNC as being devoted solely to the betterment of old rich white men as "labeling" Eco? Reading comprehension fail.

What a bunch of Don Lemon's.

It's ironic you would accuse me of reading comprehension failure when you're quite clearly confusing me with Nissa. Nice one, Squibb. Nice one.

By the way, CTV is clearly for the betterment of the 0.001% known as government.

(I can do that too!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

It's ironic you would accuse me of reading comprehension failure when you're quite clearly confusing me with Nissa. Nice one, Squibb. Nice one.

By the way, CTV is clearly for the betterment of the 0.001% known as government.

(I can do that too!)

---

I was replying to Nissa, I've included her quote now since it wasn't obvious to your narcissism.

Yeah, you're right. I misread. Unlike you, I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong.

Either way, the arguments are tiring and wasteful of limited energy. Best of luck to everyone. I'm done.

other than more hypocrisy from gamasutra and its web of videogame websites, there isn't much else going as of late.

Recap on most recent events:
About a month ago Sarkesian uploaded a bigoted video of "25 privledges of white male gamers"
Gamasutra and friends are losing a lot of money in respect to gamergate so....
they are desperate to win back affection of their readership with stupid articles like
"Our 2014's gamers of the year: you" -kotaku

Quote:

---

"Our 2014's gamers of the year: you" -kotaku

---

Hahahaha! They must thing gamers are as stupid and easily manipulated as the worst kinds of women (not women in general) they were trying to cater to before. Like the "You're worth it!" and "Pamper yourself!" marketing campaigns from decades before. Sorry Kotaku, it's not that easy.

Disclaimer: Again, I don't know much about the whole controversy so I could be speaking out of ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

Hahahaha! They must thing gamers are as stupid and easily manipulated as the worst kinds of women (not women in general) they were trying to cater to before. Like the "You're worth it!" and "Pamper yourself!" marketing campaigns from decades before. Sorry Kotaku, it's not that easy.

Disclaimer: Again, I don't know much about the whole controversy so I could be speaking out of ignorance.

---

http://www.gretchenrubin.com/wp-cont...at-yo-self.jpg

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Getting so much feminist trash on my YT frontpage now I'm going to have to spend a good five minutes adjusting some settings to get it to go away. While I was doing this though, I did find this, which was actually interesting:



Last thing I'll say on the subject and hopefully the last video I'll have to see.

http://imgur.com/gallery/pQ2VhDn

Re: economist- the only reasonable self proclaimed "feminist" in existence today. She always has some sort of voice of reason video out there regarding dumb outrages.

If cronys and social justice warriors pf game journalism keep at it unhinged, its only a matter of time before Blizzard gets blindsided by them [again, there was phony outrage over heroes of the storm skins of female characters, and blizzard revamping siege tank into a female engineer]; for the love of starcraft, you may want to consider being familiar with some of the arguments they make in gaming.

@Gradius: thats hilarious and not too far from the truth; its always fake outrage over firstworld problems.