I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.

@GenjiKilpatrick, you're not the only one who's done their research on Anita. Unlike you, I didn't start out a fan. My first reaction was that it was bullshit. But almost every video I've seen critiquing her is either barely contained misogyny or has confused criticism with censorship.

As for blocking valid criticism on YouTube, it's pointless. The signal to noise ratio is so low as to be nonexistent. Trying to pick a valid point out of a sea of bile and idiocy is a waste of time.

And no, gamer gate is not some first world problem bullshit, it's a fucking disgrace and makes me embarrassed to call myself a gamer.

Well, see, it's only censorship if the gubmin' does it. This, it's freedom.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

I hate censorship, and I do everything I can to put it down, but if I were to be fair, calling it "arbitrary" is a little biased. It certainly follows a logic of escalating offensiveness, but beyond that it's an example of how mislead the ideal of "free speech" is in the "land of freedom".

EDIT: Also, this isn't in support of "boobs", neither the female kind or the kind in front of the camera (though often the latter deserves it so much more). Phrasing your anti-censorship arguments in this way just prove the censors point, and belittle the conversation from the get-go.

Your video, Rod Serling - How Censorship Led to The Twilight Zone (1959), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't buy for a minute the idea that Sony alone made the call to cancel the release.

What do you do when you get hit and threatened by what appears to be a rogue state, like happened to Sony? You go to the cops. Probably the FBI in this case. After that, considering your company is now in the middle of an international diplomatic situation involving an unstable nuclear power, you get some considered advice from the US state dept. (probably) on how to proceed.

Judging by the outcome, the decision was it's best to cancel the release to avoid making the situation worse, but to make it Sony's call, because a western government would rather not be seen bending to terror or demanding censorship.

You're just the king of the strawmen and trying to change the subject aren't you?

I never referred to Trance's video. That's not the issue. Once again (since you keep forgetting...deliberately?) the issue is the abuse of the voting system.

I haven't watched the video, nor have I voted on it. Also irrelevant to your censorship argument since even flagged videos are still viewable here. Regardless of how you spin it. There is no censorship and by extension (since you appear to have not understood my argument) freedom of speech on a private website. If the Owner of the site says you're out, you're out. You exist here on the owner's whim. You of all people should understand that.

So quit trying to derail...or gasp..we may have to start questioning your...integrity.

What a pleasant correspondence. /s

And no one is saying "free speech" is a presiding factor here. In any event, I wasn't talking about "Trance" being right wing, I was bringing up a longer, more insidious, problem on this site. In fact, that point was for people who've been here much longer than you have.

And, yes, trying to get this video flagged is definitely censorship. You just don't like the content of the video. Admit it.

Spare me you little crybaby. Censorship my ass. Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on a private website. Besides, isn't Freedom of speech some rule some dirty statist cooked up? Proves you're a hypocrite though. Rails against statism, but attempts to run and hide behind protections established by statism

Never made the claim that Trance was right wing. The suggestion to ban him is over the abuse of the voting system which is why I quoted the guidelines which is irrelevant to his political leanings or lack thereof. It's good to know you've been paying attention so well.

Integrity of this site? That's rich coming from someone who has been previously banned. And your return which I've heard from others was a detriment to this site's integrity.

Don't like guidelines here? Go troll elsewhere. You have no inherent right to be here.

"Abusing the voting system"

Wow. Disgusting. This is the problem here. Not Trancecoach or the other handful of users you all think are too "right wing" to belong here.

No, it's comments like this, and the environment of intolerance they create.

The elitism derived from this comment alone is so grossly appalling and disgusting. It sounds a helluva lot like censorship, to be honest. You, invoking @dag, to carry out some ideological dirty work for you? It's beneath the integrity of this site. And beneath all of us here.

Your video, Kimmel - This Week in Unnecessary Censorship (10/24/14), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

PS: Art cannot discriminate or objectify anyone. People do that. Someone runs over someone with a car, is it the cars fault? Someone gets stabbed, do you ban knives? Someone publishes a sexual fantasy, should we ban all books? Feminists embrace marxism for this reason.

I grew up watching all manner of pornography. Larry Flint is one of my personal heroes. Yet I never once tried to use a woman like some kind of fleshlight. Although I noticed boys all around me without access to pornography poaching school-girls with lies and deceit and then breaking their hearts by never calling them back, or worse, leaving them with child and no support. THAT is what objectifying someone is, if you think TV and comic books is what causes these monkey-men to behave this way, that a little bit of censorship is going to transform them into empathetic intellectuals, I just want to let you know you're in for some disappointment.

If censorship is the best you can come up with, then Discuss is plainly a misnomer. Bye bye ...