Wow, it's been a while, huh?
I commented on this latest contribution but my phone ate it. Upon further reflection I decided that a front-page response would be more appropriate given the subject matter at hand and my thoughts thereon.
As you have seen, I run a fairly loose ship around here and allow a fair amount of content with which I do not agree to varying degrees. In fact, I have only spiked one post in the history of the blog based on editorial stance.
The post in question was almost number two. OK, OK, it is complete number two but you know what I mean.
Mr. V's use of quotation marks and the French language are a clear intent to trivialize the events and situations commonly known as Gamergate. These events and situations included threats of rape and death, as well as the target thereof feeling unsafe in her own home. Go ahead, re-read that sentence. To dismiss this as a contretemps is shockingly and disturbingly callous.
On the subject of cons, I have been to exactly one, over thirty years ago, and so cannot speak with any personal authority on the subject. However, from reading the work of Messrs. Wheaton and Scalzi, the trend among major cons and similar gatherings seems to be toward inclusivity, that bane of conservatives who wonder why special privileges and experiences cannot remain confined to persons such as, well, what a coincidence, themselves. I for one welcome our new inclusive overlords. Meanwhile, if you want to ogle girls, go to Hooters or a strip joint.
One is free to decry this trend and rail against it until the imagined shadows fall or the Hapsburgs return or whenever. My only advice comes from one of JJV's personal heroes:
Get over it.
5 comments:
I started to read the comment thread under the article that JJV linked, then immediately repented after stuff like this:
Male appearances are not as important as female appearance, therefore women should be objectified more
You've fallen for the western myth that men and women are equal."
I'm willing to entertain the notion that JJV is pro-defending the right of "babes" to dress up for his (and others') entertainment, and anti-stalking, bullying, and the other heinous behavior that make up "gamergate."
Yes, I think it would be fair to say that he supports the "gentlemanly" objectification of women.
I'm sorry. I'm for freedom. Particularly in gaming. The idea that the feminist assault on male dominated gaming is because of rape is something only a liberal could believe. Its about control. What feminists do not dominate they loathe and attempt to stamp out. I tend to the Adam Baldwin view on all gamer gate issues. A review of his tweets and links on this issue as well as thought of instapundit (a friggin law professor for crying out loud) cover my views on this.
A subjective feeling of unsafeness, or indeed any subjective feeling by the chief instigator of gamer gate ought not to dictate 1. anyone's speech rights 2. the ability to market or play any game 3. the content of gamer magazines.
I have been subject to too many death threats via the web to take them seriously and if I used them as an excuse to quash proponents of gay marriage or any other subject I would hope I would get the ridicule the gamergate types get.
Sigh. OK, paragraph by paragraph:
1) This does not appear to be in response to anything - post or comment - ever published on this blog. Kindly provide evidence to the contrary. Style points awarded for the appeal to authority (you found a law professor that agrees with you? Stop the presses) AND appeal to a member of the Baldwin family.
2) See sentence 1 in item 1 and crank it up to 11.
3) Bullshit. But you're right, all death threats are the same.
That comment was even more poorly written than your original post. I did not think that was possible, but it seems I must expand my horizons.
And here is a summary of the entire thing including the "death threats" accusations.http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate
Post a Comment