Comments on: La la la I’m not listening (to online sexism).

By: and back | GamingSF

and back | GamingSF — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:05:42 +0000

[...] on experiencing the story. This inspired rabid hatred from certain players. Spinksville has a particularly good post on this sad episode – we cannot censor the Internet, nor likely stop people from spewing bile [...]

By: Amused

Amused — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:35:00 +0000

Aren’t you enlightened libertarian types supposed to be of the opinion that the government has no right to interfere with the discriminatory practices of any private entity? I’m sure your “1st amendment” mantra makes for impressive posturing, but it rings more than a little hollow.

@ Spinks – Ask him about the global warming conspiracy for added entertainment.

By: Simon Jones who is blogless

Simon Jones who is blogless — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:57:32 +0000

Well, her original crime was being involved in Dragon Age 2, a much anticipated game that wasn’t very good based partially on questionable design decisions, including a shift to arcade style combat specifically designed to be easier on more casual gamers.

She then chose to publically defend those design decisions during the backlash, thereby becoming the face of peoples irritation over the direction the game took.

She also did the ‘I don’t play video games thing’, which in light of the problems with DA2, was perhaps not the best decision.

Then the internet happened and things kind of carried on from there.

By: theerivs

theerivs — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:10:16 +0000

I am not getting caught in a sexism fight again on the blogosphere, feminazis hate me as it is, but I do disagree with you on the moderation of the internet.

By: I don’t moderate « A High Latency Life

I don’t moderate « A High Latency Life — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:58:26 +0000

[...] flew past my little radar on Spinks blog, which it’s a very interesting post. The topic about sexism is near and dear to my heart, since feminists tend to shun me like the [...]

By: Goodmongo

Goodmongo — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:39:18 +0000

Sorry but there really are economic reasons against gay marriage. Marriage offers various economic bonuses that are costs to society. Historically they were given as an incentive to foster a more stable and financial home to raise children in. Some of these costs include spousal insurance, spousal social security benefits etc. Again they were originally established under the context that the man worked and the wife stayed at home raising the child. If the man died the wife received his benefits for two reasons. The first was as I said to help raise the children. The second was because the wife didn’t establish a working history for herself.

Now with gay marriage these costs (to the taxpayer) – benefits (to the recipient) are given to the gay spouse. An economic argument can be made that support of gay marriage costs taxpayers money that they would not have had to pay otherwise.

Now just because I listed them here doesn’t mean I support or am against it. This is just one piece or fact to be debated.
o the receipiant) are given to the gay spouse. An economic argument can be made that support of gay marriage costs taxpayers money that they would not have had to pay otherwise.

Now just because I listed them here doesn’t mean I support or am against it. This is just one piece or fact to be debated.

By: Syl

Syl — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:25:20 +0000

I had a very hard time wrapping my head around what crime the woman committed to warrant such reactions….I am still a little lost that apparently all she ever did was speak her mind about what gameplay she enjoys the most, design features and errr including playstyle variety?

Bizarre.

also, once more lots of people in need to learn about their freedom not to discriminate. if I got a dollar each time somebody used the free-speech argument to legislate their own hate on some web board or forum, I’d be a millionaire by now.

By: spinks

spinks — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:53:37 +0000

This is called a straw man argument, because no one said here that speech should be banned. There also are NO sound economic reasons against gay marriage.

I think you’ve said enough in this thread, and thanks for participating.

By: Goodmongo

Goodmongo — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:51:38 +0000

Some people like to point out that ‘hurtful’ or ‘offending’ speech should be banned. But what constitutes offensive or hurtful? If I say I’m against gay marriage that may be hurtful to a gay person. But that isn’t ‘homophobic’. There are sound economic reasons to be against it.

I can also flip this and say I’m for gay marriage. But wouldn’t that be offensive or hurtful to a deeply religious person? Who gets to pick and choose?

Name calling just proves that that person has no facts or can’t argue. But we see these and dismiss them very fast. But to bane or delete posts that argue the topic is simple censorship. Today you might have that power. But what about tomorrow? Don’t ever think things won’t change.

By: Goodmongo

Goodmongo — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:44:15 +0000

Troll no way buddy. Just a firm believer in the 1st amendment. See you like censoring speech as long as it is the speech you don’t want to hear. But what happens when there are different censors in power? Here’s an old saying for you to ponder. “It ain’t no fun when the rabbit’s got the gun”.

BTW, your response shows and proves my point. Just because I proposed a different answer (full 1st amendment rights) you resort to name calling. You can’t argue facts or positions but instead resort to a childish type of argument by trying to debase the other side with name calling.