Deleted

SJW is an insult that implies anti-liberalism. The Reason article highlighted that for me. There's a rift between the current left and liberal ideals.

Out of curiosity, what did you hear of them in the first place?

Basically, that they defended free speech and more generally libertarian principles.

Those are SJW, nothing to do with LGBT other than they happened to pick it as their reason to get triggered for other people this time.

They really should get their shit together anyways. They got too deep into memes to realize sometimes they aren't only communicating with some random guys online in a joking manner, but posting for a huge company. (the "did you just assume their gender" from the cyberpunk2077 account, then a sensationalist? wontbeerased tweet on GOG. Not like anyone tried to erase old games... and if they wanted, they actually could as GOG only can work if they license a game...)

Well there are a lot of people that are anti-LGBT for their own reasons.
These people who are anti-LGBT, they are called homophobes. This is the official name of these people.
Same as people who are anti-black people (or any other race), which are called racists.
Or people who are anti-Jews, who are called anitsemites.

These are simply the acceptable terms to call these people.

I think you are misrepresenting what happened with GOG. It's not that they sent out a transphobic tweet, it's that they co-opted a trending civil rights hashtag to advertise their business. It's not a hateful thing, but it's absolutely insulting, and I can understand people that are trying to draw attention to a civil rights issue being upset with them using that same issue for their advertisement.

If they had posted, "When your friends say they use GOG, proudly say #MeToo" or "Don't miss our Blackguards sale because #BlackLivesMatter", I would expect people to be similarly annoyed with them.

The "it was simply a normal tweet that they didn't know the hashtag was used by transgender people" is a completely BS excuse. One click on that hashtag would immediately fill you in as to what it was about, and who was using it. If you have no idea what hashtags mean, who's using them, or how to look them up, then you have no business handling a company's social media account.

Is pulling your game from GOG an overreaction? Possibly. But this isn't the first time this issue has come up, this is at least the third insensitive tweet from GOG in recent history. Clearly GOG isn't getting the message, so perhaps some devs pulling their games from GOG's service is what's needed to get the point across.

And I don't see any free speech issues here. GOG is free to say what they want on their social media account, and people are free to criticize them for it, and devs are free to decide who they partner with to sell their game. No one is taking GOG's social media accounts away (though I'm sure some people want to).

But you equate supporting LGBT rights and being anti-free speech, I still don't get it.

Why does it bother you if people wear something that "symbolizes" LGBT rights? Do MAGA hats bother you? Do white rights groups bother you, and what about their symbols such as the Confederate flag?

"Well there are a lot of people that are anti-LGBT for their own reasons."

Their own reasons aren't logically or practically valid. Since you admit that "a lot of [emotional and easily manipulated] people" are arbitrarily "anti-LGBT," how can you wonder why people are trying to defends their rights?

I honestly get your point of "America's not the only country", but that's total whataboutism. Sure, it's not the only country in the world. But it's also not a country without its issues.

It's like saying that I can't complain that my family member got shot in the head by a criminal because in other countries, whole entire families get burned alive. Sure, that's a terrible thing, but that doesn't make my issue less terrible because it exists.
Improving your own situation, especially for America, is sometimes the best thing to do because it has inherent influence over other countries and cultures. Policies get pushed in, making some older ones less edgy which makes other countries more susceptible towards adopting those things.

Just overall, work on yourself and help others. Focus on one or the other too much and you have a recipe for disaster.

in this world you judge the group by the loud and extreme ones "and they're very loud"

That's a frankly terrible way to judge groups of people. If you judge LGBT folks poorly because of the worst of them, then how will you judge non-LGBT folks? Because non-LGBT folks have beaten, jailed, and killed LGBT folks.

Even if you limit it to online harassment, the amount of harassment inflicted upon LGBT folks is 1000 times of that inflicted by LGBT folks.

I don't know why you perceive groups supporting LGBT folks as bullies. If some of them go to extremes, could that be because they feel like they've been backed against a wall, and have no other alternative? I mean, in the US, the current administration has removed protections from transgender workers against employment discrimination (you can be fired for being trans), barred transgender individuals from serving in the military, and there's legislation in some parts telling trans-girls that they can't use the girls's restroom. How dehumanizing is that? And now they're proposing to change the definition of "sex," which will not only eliminate existing federal protections for trans folks, it'll state that they don't exist. And that's just in the US. In other parts of the world it's illegal to be transgender at all.

"and I should stop arguing or caring about this but I like doing it for some reason.."

I often find myself doing this, investing time, caring or getting mad about something that has no relevance or meaning to me. I think we all do that in some degree. But it is always good to reflect and realize these things. That is part of growing as an individual

???

Oh brother. You tend to amalgamate a lot of things, don't you?
Feminism is about equal rights for women. And some feminists may think that all men are pigs (and quite a few men think it too) but that doesn't mean all feminists do. It's a syllogism

I agree to an extent but either it's paying dividents (the group of people that like to consume their views is big enough to sustain them) or their belief in those view is stronger than their hunger for profits.

Either way I do not see who it would be beneficial to try to force to do otherwise. There are apparently plenty of people with neutral or opposing views, so starting a website that caters to either of these demographics should be quite easy, especially with the apparent lack of competition. Right?

Heh sure, keep telling yourself that. On the one hand you have urban myths and propaganda. On the other hand, you have facts corroborated by an FBI investigation.
We do agree on Trump being a Republican just about as much as Miley Cyrus is a virgin but you probably shouldn't use the word crazy in the same sentence as his name because he's the only one whose mental illness is scientifically obvious. Narcissism, delusions of grandeur, paranoia, he's running the whole gamut of clinically insane and if the Republicans had any balls left, they'd be saying "not in our name" but whatever.

You're right. I had a long day and my fuse is shortened somehow.
As for social media, I never had a facebook account for this reason (among others) and the only social media I partook in for a time was twitter but I gave up for exactly this reason: it makes people crazy. Like foam at the mouth enraged. And I mean on both ends of the political spectrum. It's nearly impossible to have a conversation about anything now, even things that have nothing to do with politics (not that human rights, marriage or education were actually every politics but whatever) with anybody.
It's exhausting really. But when we get to the point where people who disagree are getting bombs in the mail, it's just scary.

Have a good weekend, man

You make a good point. Compared with Canada and Europe, even the left wing is pretty close to the center.

you're trying to guilt him by saying people who allign with him idealogically are terrible you doofus
also drop the condescension, friendo

Hey I actually watched that. Between what Avantyr said and this I think I have a better handle on what went down. The creator is obviously right-leaning, and I think the video probably was softer on the level of trolling that took place from the side of the gamers, but it showed a relatively balanced view. Basically just a personal fight between two groups that got amplified across the web because one group happened to be journalists.

looks like the comments are much more about gamergate matter than the video itself.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think at the time the whole thing blew over the sites I had been visiting were definitely on that extreme front, but then the comments were filled with people posting extreme right youtube videos. So the impression I got is that it's just this battle of extremes, whilst most gamers in the middle don't actually care.
Maybe things are different where you are, but even though traditional media is less pronounced than social media, you can still easily see what side of the fence a newspaper sits. As you say, you learn to filter it out and decide for yourself, but it doesn't make the obvious bias less jarring.

Oh and I'm British so it's apologiSing and it's perfectly good English. And it's also 'defence', again because I'm British, and I'm using it as a noun. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you project your superiority and try to correct someone, because you may risk coming off as a pretentious blowhard. :-)

Oh yeah, that is a better word for it. I tried to use inverted commas to show it's not really traditionally liberal values, but more so-called 'liberal'. "Socially progressive", inverted commas, works as well to show a difference to someone who just wants the same basic rights for all people which is a more traditionally liberal value.

I think I understand your point about reviews always being subjective, and I'm certainly not expecting a balanced opinion on the latest Tomb raider game from a fan. But if the reviewer mentions that they feel Lara is too sexualised or that her boobs are too big, I'm going to be annoyed. I don't really want their opinion on that, I want to know if they feel that it is a good Tomb raider game, or a bad one. It should be up to me to decide if I think Lara is only a projection of my male fantasies and not a well rounded character in her own right. Yes I know it's more likely to come up in a editorial on a site like feminist frequency, but I've read more than a few reviews that have brought up things like this.

And yes, there is certainly some element of novelty with some of these games that 'break new ground' and for some people, the fact that a game does that in itself is enough reason to make it noteworthy. I mean a game about a gay car is weird, and in a world measured by clicks, it's sure to bring a few. But I do still think we're at the stage were games with certain themes are given extra points, maybe it's purely because of the novelty, but the cynic in me also thinks there's a part that doesn't want to seem less than super enthusiastic about the game because lack of enthusiasm about the game may be perceived as a lack of support for the subject matter, which could brand you as an outcast in a media world that has a very definite 'left' lean to it. But anyway, that's my opinion, we can agree to disagree, and I'm not taking away anything from games that are genuinely good. I just hope that one day the novelty wears off and a bad game can be called out regardless of theme.

Following specific reviewers does help a lot, but it gets exhausting, easier to just watch gameplay and decide for myself. I have a few sites I visit where I know the reviews keep their opinions to whether or not they think the game was fun, but they only review a limited number of PC games. In fact with the volume of games coming out on PC, sometimes a short editorial is about the only written words you'll find on a game.

Oh yeah, there is such a movement nowadays to vilify men for every action they take. And it's not healthy for anyone. Yes there's a lot of ground to be taken in some societies as far as their treatment of women goes, but so many people jump to the conclusion that a persons treatment of them is based purely on some prejudice that person holds instead of their own actions. Their own prejudice is telling them that the other party is acting out of prejudice. I live in a very multi-cultural society, and I always joke that I long for a day when I can be angry with someone of another race simply because they are being an asshole, and race has nothing to do with it.

A few years ago I had a conflict with a neighbour who kept having loud parties at his house just across the road from us until 3 in the morning, and I was hesitant to get the police involved, because this guy was a different colour to me, but eventually I did. So the cop shows up, who shares the same race as the neighbour. And of course sure as anything, the neighbour is swearing at me and says I'm racist, and if I care about noise, why haven't I done anything about the pub down the road that also had loud music some nights. So I took the cop back to my house and printed out all my paperwork where we were actually taking legal action along with our other neighbours to get the pub shut down. The cop was amused to say the least. But yeah often the reason we don't like a person is everything to do with how they behave.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post in the context of others that were posted.

dOh!

To be honest, I had not even considered that context. That was really dumb of me. I am so used to thinking independently and avoiding "crowd think" that I never even considered the effect of my being physically part of "the crowd." I am not sure I expressed that clearly, but I want to thank you for teaching me something important.

I thought you were accusing the book of being deliberate and blatant propaganda, instead of merely being a bad book unsuited for its purpose.

It is true that I had not intended that. I suppose some could argue the point, but it would be a weak argument. Yes, the author appears to write with a bias, but most authors do. It is a natural tendency, making it impossible to prove intent without outside corroboration. It would make more sense to assume the author was being candid and it is Humble who has the agenda, but even that is problematic. The only way to know what a person is thinking is to have them tell you, openly and honestly. All else is speculation. We can notice patterns of behavior over an extended period of time if we have sufficient evidence, but that does not give us the ability to read minds.

meh... I feel this response is becoming more and more abstruse. P