|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 29, 2016 10:49:34 GMT -5
His first words colour his advice too: "Toughen up." The implication is "if you can't toughen up, then it would be in your best interest to turn it off."
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 29, 2016 11:09:42 GMT -5
but the lot who actually adhere to GG's ideals just ignores it. Which is an absolutely terrible idea. The reputation that the group has as a bunch of girl-hating manchildren completely undermine any meaningful goals they have. I wont deny or disagree that people overplay the sexism thing or that there are trolls or attention-seekers that egg that on, but the other issue is that there are people who use the group as an excuse to push that agenda themselves; and it has allowed that reputation to be maintained even after the movement branched into different names and was taken out of the spotlight. When it comes down to it, most people consider sexism to be a bigger deal than videogame journalism. The broader stance against censorship in general is better but again most people dont care when its for the sake of political correctness (which there definitely has been outrage over from what ive seen on reddit at least). Ignoring or accepting the negative reputation of the group instead of trying to distance itself from it turns the movement into a glorified whinebox whose only impact on the media comes from people trying to make bank off of pandering to them. When i say gamergate is dead i dont mean that nobodys trying anymore, i mean that i dont think theres a chance they can accomplish anything anymore. I would argue that there's no practical way to actually push back against the "they are sexist" narrative, not because they're sexist obviously. The dominant narrative will remain "they're sexist" even if all the figureheads came out and said "we're terribly sorry for what some of the people who do stuff in our name said, please ignore them, they're not us." And, in fact, after countless accusations, we have condemned actually sexist people in general countless times. We've gotten tired of being accused of something we're not, and we know it won't go away. Systemic, institutional patriarchy? No; systemic, institutional spin and narrative control. We've even seen that apologizing doesn't work. Give them an inch, and they want unreasonable miles. It doesn't help that "censor the internet" is a huge part of the SJW's narrative, and attempting to enforce their ideals onto a movement which is ostensibly opposed to them means they've won in many senses. Bottom line, there's no practical way to police that behaviour, and it would be a waste of effort to try. You're wrong to say that people have given up and aren't trying in a broader sense, then. Mr. Meteokur, Drunken Peasants, whoever, and all those other YouTube wannabes are still pushing content and gaining views. People are getting no-platformed and bullied out by the SJWs--recently, Dawkins--and we're finally seeing headway by having debates in universities with Milo's recent touring, and speaking of Milo he's still hot on it, and has directly been the cause of an executive shakeup at Twitter. And, if we want to take it to a societal level, the amount of people who self-identify as 'feminists' has been decreasing over the years. Donald Trump's (stupid) popularity is enough to say that people have a growing distaste for political correctness and all sorts of isms we've had to pay platitudes to over the years. No more. If they want to believe I'm sexist because I identify with a movement, I don't need to shout at them that I'm not any more, they're the ones at fault and not me.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 29, 2016 11:16:40 GMT -5
I don't think it's remotely realistic to say "If you get harassed online, simply turn off your device and stop going online". That doesn't work. Plenty of people have friends far away that they can't see every day. Hell, I wouldn't be able to see any of you guys if I had to suddenly disappear offline forever. If Milo argued that the right to free speech is as important as the right to ignore anyone at will, then I'd agree with him there. Well I think the point was more that you don't need a public twitter. If people are harassing you over stuff you keep saying on twitter, maybe stop using a public one. And I'm fairly certain he has said you can press block. Most of the people advocating against him are saying twitter needs to start banning people or even worse the government needs to start arresting them. It's ridiculous. Which is an absolutely terrible idea. The reputation that the group has as a bunch of girl-hating manchildren completely undermine any meaningful goals they have. I wont deny or disagree that people overplay the sexism thing or that there are trolls or attention-seekers that egg that on, but the other issue is that there are people who use the group as an excuse to push that agenda themselves; and it has allowed that reputation to be maintained even after the movement branched into different names and was taken out of the spotlight. When it comes down to it, most people consider sexism to be a bigger deal than videogame journalism. The broader stance against censorship in general is better but again most people dont care when its for the sake of political correctness (which there definitely has been outrage over from what ive seen on reddit at least). Ignoring or accepting the negative reputation of the group instead of trying to distance itself from it turns the movement into a glorified whinebox whose only impact on the media comes from people trying to make bank off of pandering to them. When i say gamergate is dead i dont mean that nobodys trying anymore, i mean that i dont think theres a chance they can accomplish anything anymore. The groups reputation depends on who you ask. Most people probably have no opinion on it because they literally haven't heard of it. Anyone in support would tell you it's a movement against all the bullshit in the media and beyond. Anyone against it would say what you said. So what exactly do you want them to, tell people like Wu, Quinn, and Sarkeesian that they are full of shit? They just use that as more "proof" of harassment to make themselves more money. And what, just because an insignificant number of trolls tweet out bullshit with the hashtag, it somehow validates the misogynist label? Theres no point in trying to rebrand the movement, they just get called the same thing instantly when it went from quinspiracy to gamergate. The media will never say anything positive about them. Arguing with people on twitter gets nobody anywhere. The only disappointing thing is that Wikipedia can't have a remotely fair article because the only sources they can use are the same media ones from before. If people legitimately cared about sexism, they would be outraged at what happened in germany and cologne. But all of the feminists are quiet on the issue. And not everything they do has to be another quinspiracy. All they have to do is point out all the bullshit when it happens and they continue to grow. Just look at the subreddit stats from before. It's not decreasing.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 29, 2016 12:34:59 GMT -5
Germany and Cologne - Politics makes strange bedfellows. SJWs, generally, are silent or positive on the issue if Islam, which they should be the most vehemently opposed to of all world religions if their own agendas are to be taken honestly. Those that do speak out are policed out by the movement--we can't be racist against Arabs and we have to be open to our Islamic brothers and sisters. It's stunning to see such an unforgiving, loud, and vitriolic group of activists saying next to nothing on the matter.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Jan 29, 2016 21:09:54 GMT -5
Germany and Cologne - Politics makes strange bedfellows. SJWs, generally, are silent or positive on the issue if Islam, which they should be the most vehemently opposed to of all world religions if their own agendas are to be taken honestly. Those that do speak out are policed out by the movement--we can't be racist against Arabs and we have to be open to our Islamic brothers and sisters. It's stunning to see such an unforgiving, loud, and vitriolic group of activists saying next to nothing on the matter. It's important to make a distinction between religion and culture when thinking about why these people integrate so poorly into western society. In this situation it is mostly the arab culture that is to blame and not Islam. Arab culture is significantly behind western culture when it comes to many progressive ideals, and while specifically islamic things like sharia law aren't exactly helping to bridge the gap, the vast majority of western born Muslims integrate just fine into western society. The Cologne attacks didn't occur because of a massive influx of Muslims into Germany, they occurred of a massive influx of people whose culture is dramatically different and backward. Tbqh I have no idea what Angela Merkel and many other European leaders were thinking opening up their borders like that. I'm as bleeding heart as anyone when it comes to humanitarian causes but letting anyone in without some sort of screening process, especially since they are fleeing an area of the world that has extremist groups bent on causing destruction in western civilization, shows a lack of respect for the safety of their own citizens. Even something as simple as determining which refugees are shia and which are sunni would go a long way toward identifying potential threats vs those who might be fleeing ISIS.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 30, 2016 1:45:25 GMT -5
And just because jaedrik has been oddly reasonable, a copyright controversy:
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 30, 2016 3:14:34 GMT -5
Insofar as "opening it up for everyone" constitutes having a legal monopoly over the format of a show, it becomes detrimental to the proclaimed goals. Their well-seeming rhetoric, then, has to be taken for ignorance or PR speak.
If their words, "We do not own the idea of reaction videos nor would we shut down anyone making reaction based content." can be trusted, then there's nothing to worry. But that hardly matters.
If it CAN be weaponized in ANY way to legally take down or hinder competition (like trademarking), then it's better to not have it at all so that the temptation is never there (tempting people to do bad things is bad and shouldn't be institutionalized). Seals of approval can be granted without legal monopolies. The things they put forward as positives for everyone: "This is also a way to create a community on YouTube of like minded producers and fans who want to work together, and benefit from the guidance and resources that we can provide around the specific FBE shows that we are making available through the React World program." can be done without a legal monopoly. Competition MUST be allowed to proceed unimpinged by legal concerns. That fraudulent companies which defame the reputation of another pop up is a societal tragedy, yes, in no way is it permissible that they be shut down on legal grounds, since that would be a greater tragedy. #1. a good reputation isn't a right, it is earned, #2. consumers would want to be informed if they wanted to keep their people straight and go to the 'right' places for high quality content, #3. the initiation of force against people who use words or labels in ways that they don't like (which is ultimately what it boils down to) is morally incoherent from the standpoint of a natural law and, categorically, cannot have positive effects on a society since it violates said natural laws. Ultimately, it has to be solved through peaceable, sociable, civil, cultural means which don't rely upon the threat of violence.
Top it all off, trademarking (at least like this) is against common sense, as Mega64 and penguinz0 humorously prove :D
"In fact, that shit goes way back to the 80s." When it's us taking other peoples' ideas, we justify it. When other people take our ideas, we villify it. Loss / risk aversion complex 2 stronk.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jan 30, 2016 13:00:16 GMT -5
Honestly I don't see a problem here. The only thing they have control over is their brand. Meaning as long as you don't make reaction videos under their brand without their permission, you're fine. This is why I don't have an inherent problem with copyrights or trademarks or patents. Don't get me wrong patent trolls are something that needs to be addressed, the ridiculous modern copyright law needs to be fixed, fair use needs to be expanded. But I see no problem with people having control over their product.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Jan 30, 2016 13:35:04 GMT -5
Germany and Cologne - Politics makes strange bedfellows. SJWs, generally, are silent or positive on the issue if Islam, which they should be the most vehemently opposed to of all world religions if their own agendas are to be taken honestly. Those that do speak out are policed out by the movement--we can't be racist against Arabs and we have to be open to our Islamic brothers and sisters. It's stunning to see such an unforgiving, loud, and vitriolic group of activists saying next to nothing on the matter. Islam isn't what's causing certain people to act in in humane ways. It's the fact that they come from a region of the world that hasn't caught up with the standards of modern society. I'm not going to point to religion as the cause of someone's behavior the same reason I'm not going to allow religion to be an excuse for homophobia. There are numerous people who identify as Muslim who don't use their religion as an excuse to oppress and murder just like how there are many people that identify as Christian who don't hate LGBT groups. The Middle East is simply a mess with numerous issues that have nothing to do with religion. The whole concept of "being open to our brethren" is that you don't judge someone for the actions of people like them or because of characteristics that are completely harmless, but instead judge each individual for his or her own actions. That sort of concept is a huge ideal of modern society in general.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 30, 2016 14:04:00 GMT -5
Honestly I don't see a problem here. The only thing they have control over is their brand. Meaning as long as you don't make reaction videos under their brand without their permission, you're fine. This is why I don't have an inherent problem with copyrights or trademarks or patents. Don't get me wrong patent trolls are something that needs to be addressed, the ridiculous modern copyright law needs to be fixed, fair use needs to be expanded. But I see no problem with people having control over their product. They've harassed people doing stuff they see as their "format". Including Ellen. Their tweet.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jan 30, 2016 17:11:11 GMT -5
That's not harassment and the fact the video is still up means they probably didn't actually do anything besides bitching about it.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 30, 2016 18:38:34 GMT -5
Not harassment. Also the fact that they're trademarking "react". This is as dumb as Sony trying to trademark "let's play".
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jan 30, 2016 19:35:06 GMT -5
No, it's not harassment. And they didn't trademark the word react. They specifically have "Kids React,” “Teens React,” “Elders React,” “Adults React,” And “React Gaming" trademarked. Again, I don't see a problem. Trademarks are much weaker than copyright.
Are they assholes? Probably, but they can't really do much.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jan 31, 2016 14:18:54 GMT -5
Telling their fans to call them thieves isn't harassment?
Anyways, they did trademark "react" in addition to the specific ones you listed.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jan 31, 2016 18:17:55 GMT -5
Telling their fans to call them thieves isn't harassment? Anyways, they did trademark "react" in addition to the specific ones you listed. I don't see anywhere where that is, and if it is trademarked it's not a registered trademark, so it's weaksauce.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 31, 2016 18:48:28 GMT -5
I don't see anywhere where that is, and if it is trademarked it's not a registered trademark, so it's weaksauce. Also the fact that they're trademarking "react". www.tmfile.com/mark/?q=866893643??? Did you miss this part, or did he change the link, or isn't it accurate?
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jan 31, 2016 20:02:05 GMT -5
I didn't check the link, that's my bad. And after checking the link, they still didn't trademark react. They trademarked REACT and the trademark is for "Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-going series of programs and webisodes via the internet in the field of observing and interviewing various groups of people" People act like trademarks are this big thing, they're not.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 1, 2016 11:57:58 GMT -5
People act like trademarks are this big thing, they're not. I really hope you're right. Edit: and I hope "big thing" is qualified. To me, it would be a big thing if people couldn't use the label "React." That's slapping down competition with the threat of violence.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Feb 1, 2016 12:20:54 GMT -5
I think the fact that The Fine Bros are trying to claim to be first people (which they are by claiming trademark) is absurd considering there are many reaction videos that predate them and by a lot, especially when you consider stuff outside of YouTube. It reminds of when King trademarked "Candy" and there turned out to be a game that Candy Crush was clearly inspired by that predates it and had the word "Candy" in the title. King then bought the rights to that game.
But of course Youtube's standards are "Did a big group want to claim violation? Let's just appease them without even checking the merits of the claim."
TFB are going to have a much harder time trying to enforce their BS claim on stuff outside of YouTube unless they somehow have enough money to buy the rights to all the stuff that predates them.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 1, 2016 14:22:10 GMT -5
I didn't say they weren't powerful, just that they're not a big deal. It's fairly easy to avoid trademark infringement, even with something this vague. The biggest problem is as you said, the YouTube system. But YouTube's system is shit regardless of whether or not they have a trademark, the trademark just gives them more leverage in enforcing a claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 18:40:50 GMT -5
Whelp, Anita's at it again. A part of TB's latest 28-minute stream, meant to protest a move by Twitch which annoyed a lot of people. Totalbiscuit - "So apparently you (Feminist Frequency) can get front page with a fundraiser for a history project that has nothing to do with gaming, hours of static splash screens and banning literally anyone saying that you are violating Terms of Service! Which is incredible, so... to celebrate Twitch's change of rules we will be streaming this (nothing)."
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Apr 8, 2016 19:27:30 GMT -5
I'd blame Twitch for refusing to enforce their own rules on Anita.
|
|