Adam Baldwin and Conventions

[Amaris]

GamerGators are like the kooky conservatives, they get all their info from blogs and new sources that only back up their worldview. Any outside information is dismissed because it doesn't come from within their bubble.

They were harassing some YouTuber and claiming that his wife wasn't real, then started stalking his brother demanding proof that his sister-in-law existed through video or photos. So it's all about ethical journalism and not an angry mob that chases anyone who shows a hint of disapproval at their narrow-minded beliefs.

Gamergate is to ethics in gaming journalism, as the Tea Party is to fiscal responsibility. They talk a good game about doing what is right and ethical for all, but all they really want are certain groups of people to lose some of their freedoms due to an ingrained insecurity that manifests itself in ignorance and loud, vocal demonstrations.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I've liked a few things Adam Baldwin acted in, even followed him on Twitter for a while but unfollowed because of his political ramblings. One morning I woke up to insults and slurs from him because of conversation I had with someone else that he wasn't even included in. So his stance on gamergate really didn't surprise me, though it surprised me he didn't have PR people stopping him.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

That's not how you framed your comments. You did not say
'Gamergaters apparently claim x' you said:

No. She apparently was cheating on the guy with said journalist, who during the time they were sleeping together wrote a favorable review of the game, and pushed the game in several articles

Jesus!

I'm not having a debate over the meaning of the word "apparently", but to clarify, saying something "apparently" occurred, again from Google:

ap·par·ent·ly
əˈperən(t)lē/
adverb
as far as one knows or can see.
"the child nodded, apparently content with the promise"
synonyms: seemingly, evidently, it seems (that), it appears (that), it would seem (that), it would appear (that), as far as one knows, by all accounts; More
used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying.
"foreign ministers met but apparently failed to make progress"

In other words, I have no idea whether this happened or not, and could care less, but it was the motivation behind the forming of Gamergate!

You were not expressing the views of others, you were expressing your own views and sprinkling in comments that are easily refutable.

Such as?

The fact that you have repeatedly maintained an untenable position based on easily refutable arguments and colored by an inexplicable refusal to modify ANY of your thought processes is really inexcusable.

The fact that you think you are the arbiter of what is and is not excusable is funny. What position of mine is untenable?

 

[TremblingBluStar]

^ Exactly, but gamergate sites keep pushing that bullshit, and people like TBS keep eating it up.

This site offers a pretty clear summation of their problems with Nathan Grayson. You don't consider the article Zaku linked to above positive press?

In any event, I personally don't think he did anything wrong. Which amuses me when people here are hyper sensitive, and make massive assumptions that because I don't hate everybody associated with gamergate that I must support them. I don't. I could personally care less about games journalism. I simply don't like seeing a group of people marked as guilty by association, no matter whom they are.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it is being impartial in this. If that isn't good enough for some of the people here, oh well.

 

[BigJake]

So if I'm guilty of anything, it is being impartial in this.

Oh yes, I've been fascinated by your completely "impartial" rants about Anita Sarkeesian the supposed "scam artist," just for starters. (While you're Googling words, you may want to have a snap at that one to see just how little your behaviour fits it.)

You're miles too late to be trying to walk this stuff back, dude.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

So if I'm guilty of anything, it is being impartial in this.

Oh yes, I've been fascinated by your completely "impartial" rants about Anita Sarkeesian the supposed "scam artist," just for starters. (While you're Googling words, you may want to have a snap at that one to see just how little your behaviour fits it.)

You're miles too late to be trying to walk this stuff back, dude.

Gamergate dude. Gamergate.

Sarkeesian can pound sand for all I care. Her videos have been debunked by countless individuals, and while harassment and threats are inexcusable, I'm not terribly impressed with the way she uses the threats for self-promotion, which only encourages more threats, instead of allowing the authorities to quietly handle the situation. Instead, Anita runs to Twitter to share with everybody . If I were honestly scared for my life based on anonymous Internet threats, I'd call the police. I would not share them on Twitter.

That doesn't even begin to address her post about "toxic masculinity" following a school shooting, which she rightly received plenty of flack for.

 

[BigJake]

I am continually amused, however, at continually being told I have misogynistic views.

That happens when you behave with insane, frothing hostility toward women who have done nothing apparently wrong that you can pin to them except being women.

Sarkeesian, who of course was part of your Gamergate nonsense (you don't get to keep shifting goalposts either) is of course an excellent and consistent example from you from well before this thread. A woman about whom you really quite plainly have nothing worthwhile or interesting to say at all... which of course hasn't stopped you from slandering her in terms and with lies borrowed in their entirety from Gamergate, the hate mob whose misogynistic rantings and conspiracy theories just coincidentally keep winding up in your mouth.

EDIT: In fact, amazingly, because you apparently just can't help yourself, you just did it again:

Her videos have been debunked by countless individuals, and while harassment and threats are inexcusable, I'm not terribly impressed with the way she uses the threats for self-promotion, which only encourages more threats, instead of allowing the authorities to quietly handle the situation. Instead, Anita runs to Twitter to share with everybody . If I were honestly scared for my life based on anonymous Internet threats, I'd call the police. I would not share them on Twitter.

Just standard GamerGator IHateAnita boilerplate. And of course she can't come up as a topic of conversation for more than a few seconds without your trotting it out; your being able to keep it together while talking about her would be inconsistent with your clearly irrational hatred and resentment of her.

Similarly, your fascination with repeating such lies and conspiracy theories about other women -- which you're now hilariously attempting to pass off as "impartial" description -- tends to hint that you chose that course because you found the source of those lies (a misogynistic hate mob, full stop) philosophically agreeable.

You're going to deny this now, but unfortunately you're in the wake of having flushed your own credibility down the toilet by trading in falsehoods (and repeatedly replicating mysogynistic rhetoric about Sarkeesian, who apparently cannot be terrified or timid enough to suit you). So the question is obviously going to come up as to why people should believe you.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

That happens when you behave with insane, frothing hostility toward women who have done nothing apparently wrong that you can pin to them except being women.

*sigh*. Aside from posting lengthy "analysis" videos filled with poorly researched observations and misrepresentations. I simply find her disingenuous, a liar, and a self-promoter. What speaks volumes is that some people here think this is misogyny, even though I have repeatedly stated that if she were a man, I'd feel the same way.

People who jump on the misogyny label at the first sing of dissension from views probably need to analyse their own thinking and feelings regarding gender.

Again, her tweet about "toxic masculanity" following a school shooting says it all. Is there any other group besides men that this sort of thing would be acceptable with? No. If someone were to, for example, follow the tragic death of a child in a widely publicized case pointing out that women are responsible for 70% of child deaths according to DHHS, yet fathers are far more likely to be sentenced to prison, then bemoan how we need to address "toxic femininity" in our culture, the person would be rightly called out on it. And probably called a misogynist.

You are miles too late to walk it back. You are months too late to walk it back. You might as well accept that.

What makes you think I care to?

Similarly, your fascination with repeating such lies and conspiracy theories about other women -- which you're now hilariously attempting to pass off as "impartial" description -- tends to hint that you chose that course because you found the source of those lies (a misogynistic hate mob, full stop) philosophically agreeable.

So, in other words, more guilt by association nonsense. What fascination with lies and conspiracy theories are you referring to? My one post saying that a person "apparently" was in a relationship with another person, which is widely reported and well known? Yeah, I am clearly the one who is not being impartial here.

 

[{ Emilia }]

What's Sarkeesian lying about then?

And don't even bother questioning the existence of threats because those are simply a fact.

And disingenuous self-promoter? She raised money for a project. People loved the idea so much they gave her more than she asked for initially. She continues to provide the videos people wanted. How come you're objecting to this kickstarter specifically? It looks perfectly normal to me and I don't see what's wrong about Sarkeesian promoting her videos and pursuing her career. Again: Perfectly normal.

Ah, I forgot: She's female and says things some guys don't like.

 

[BigJake]

*sigh*. Aside from posting lengthy "analysis" videos filled with poorly researched observations and misrepresentations. I simply find her disingenuous, a liar, and a self-promoter.

People think this is misogyny because of the skewed priorities evident in your belief that any of your feelings about her "self-promotion" or her supposedly being "a liar" (a claim for which you've never furnished a solitary shred of evidence) are so important as to require constant mention even in the context of death and rape threats. And the fact that you tend to borrow your factoids and rhetoric from Gamergate, sometimes word for word, indicates that you're likely a manifestation of what Gamergate represents; outright misogyny poorly-veiled as thin-skinned complaint about "analysis" videos, or in other words about a feminist woman daring to have anything to say about video games.

Again, her tweet about "toxic masculanity"[sic] following a school shooting says it all. Is there any other group besides men that this sort of thing would be acceptable with?

Or rather, your reaction and urge to filter that tweet through the ideological prism of an MRA blog says it all. (And BTW, yes, when mass shooters are almost exclusively male, the idea of "toxic masculinity" is a non-insane thing to bring up. By contrast, the MRA reaction to that tweet was quite insane.)

EDIT: I love, by the way, that you switched out the original paragraph you'd written in order to post this far more incriminating one in the apparent belief that it would make you look better or more rational. And incidentally:

If someone were to, for example, follow the tragic death of a child in a widely publicized case pointing out that women are responsible for 70% of child deaths according to DHHS, yet fathers are far more likely to be sentenced to prison, then bemoan how we need to address "toxic femininity" in our culture, the person would be rightly called out on it.

Especially because that would be almost as disingenuous as your attempt to pretend that this example is remotely analogous to what Sarkeesian was talking about.

People who jump on the misogyny label at the first sing of dissension from views probably need to analyse their own thinking and feelings regarding gender.

Oh dear. Have I considered that perhaps you are rubber, and I am glue? What a profound development that would be!

*sigh*

 

[Avon]

tbs. you're a misogynist. this thread is the evidence of that. you can parrot the same proven lies over and over, but nobodies buying what you're selling.

 

[Timby]

That happens when you behave with insane, frothing hostility toward women who have done nothing apparently wrong that you can pin to them except being women.

*sigh*. Aside from posting lengthy "analysis" videos filled with poorly researched observations and misrepresentations. I simply find her disingenuous, a liar, and a self-promoter. What speaks volumes is that some people here think this is misogyny, even though I have repeatedly stated that if she were a man, I'd feel the same way.

People who jump on the misogyny label at the first sing of dissension from views probably need to analyse their own thinking and feelings regarding gender.

Again, her tweet about "toxic masculanity" following a school shooting says it all. Is there any other group besides men that this sort of thing would be acceptable with? No. If someone were to, for example, follow the tragic death of a child in a widely publicized case pointing out that women are responsible for 70% of child deaths according to DHHS, yet fathers are far more likely to be sentenced to prison, then bemoan how we need to address "toxic femininity" in our culture, the person would be rightly called out on it. And probably called a misogynist.

You are miles too late to walk it back. You are months too late to walk it back. You might as well accept that.

What makes you think I care to?

Similarly, your fascination with repeating such lies and conspiracy theories about other women -- which you're now hilariously attempting to pass off as "impartial" description -- tends to hint that you chose that course because you found the source of those lies (a misogynistic hate mob, full stop) philosophically agreeable.

So, in other words, more guilt by association nonsense. What fascination with lies and conspiracy theories are you referring to? My one post saying that a person "apparently" was in a relationship with another person, which is widely reported and well known? Yeah, I am clearly the one who is not being impartial here.

If you genuinely are a licensed mental health professional, as you have claimed in the past, I feel sorry for your female patients. Holy shit, dude.

 

[Pingfah]

Gender imbalance in all types of crime is worth examining. I'm quite sure the reasons most homicides and mass shootings are committed by men are entirely incomparable to the reasons women are responsible for the majority of child deaths though.

The idea that some of the myriad ways society perceives masculinity feeds into why men are more likely to commit premeditated violent crimes is far from absurd. It's easy to see what "toxic masculinity" might be referring to. What "toxic femininity" is, and how it might feed specifically into child mistreatment is less clear, but i'm open to suggestions and theories.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Sarkeesian can pound sand for all I care. Her videos have been debunked by countless individuals, and while harassment and threats are inexcusable, I'm not terribly impressed with the way she uses the threats for self-promotion, which only encourages more threats, instead of allowing the authorities to quietly handle the situation. Instead, Anita runs to Twitter to share with everybody . If I were honestly scared for my life based on anonymous Internet threats, I'd call the police. I would not share them on Twitter.

If you're wondering again why people accuse you of spreading lies and misinformation, it's because on Page-1 of this thread you were saying that there's no proof of any threats being made against her. And then when that was shown to not be true you modified it to the police and law enforcement considering it no legitimate threat. And when that was shown not to be true you modified it again to "Why is she going on Twitter instead of calling the police" when you already acknowledged that the police and FBI have been contacted multiple times.

So what is it? Are there no threats, no legitimate threats, or is she exploiting the threats on social media instead of calling police; and if so, how did they get involved? The constant lies and vendetta against Sarkeesian you have are why people have taken such a dim view of your behavior, and misogynistic statements you've made in the past on this subject and others don't help.

 

[Amaris]

^ Exactly, but gamergate sites keep pushing that bullshit, and people like TBS keep eating it up.

This site offers a pretty clear summation of their problems with Nathan Grayson. You don't consider the article Zaku linked to above positive press?

In any event, I personally don't think he did anything wrong. Which amuses me when people here are hyper sensitive, and make massive assumptions that because I don't hate everybody associated with gamergate that I must support them. I don't. I could personally care less about games journalism. I simply don't like seeing a group of people marked as guilty by association, no matter whom they are.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it is being impartial in this. If that isn't good enough for some of the people here, oh well.

You care so little about it that you've done nothing but rail against people like Sarkeesian since you've been in this thread. That's how little you care about it.

You are neither impartial, nor balanced. Your posts are rants that froth at the edges, and offer nothing but a clear view into misogyny, and a strong hatred toward women like Anita Sarkeesian. You can post as many links as you want, but it doesn't change your words here.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[urbandefault]

So ... Adam Baldwin has opinions and stuff?

 

[Awesome Possum]

So ... Adam Baldwin has opinions and stuff?

Yes and people are welcome to object to those opinions. That's how free speech works. You're free to speak your mind, you aren't free from the consequences of them.

 

[JD5000]

So ... Adam Baldwin has opinions and stuff?

Yes and people are welcome to object to those opinions. That's how free speech works. You're free to speak your mind, you aren't free from the consequences of them.

Are people also welcome to agree with those opinions, even if they are horrendously misguided and misrepresented?

What are the consequences, in your opinion?

 

[Awesome Possum]

So ... Adam Baldwin has opinions and stuff?

Yes and people are welcome to object to those opinions. That's how free speech works. You're free to speak your mind, you aren't free from the consequences of them.

Are people also welcome to agree with those opinions, even if they are horrendously misguided and misrepresented?

Of course, why wouldn't they be? People are right and wrong about a lot of things.

What are the consequences, in your opinion?

Having people ask that an actor not attend a convention for one. Also people have been fired for what they say. I don't agree with it, but it's really up the employer.

Not that any of that matters, since free speech only means that the government can't stop you from speaking your mind. Society and your employer can stop you. If you don't believe that go to your job and call your boss an asshole, see how long you keep your job.

 

[JD5000]

If you don't believe that go to your job and call your boss an asshole, see how long you keep your job.

That's how the chef and I start every day...but I guess it's all in inflection and intention.

The point is made though, not everyone has that 'special' relationship with their boss. In this case, I don't think the 'consequences' are on par with the actions. If the consequence society can bestow is to turn its back on the guy, how does one reconcile the anger associated with this issue with that consequence? I've seen the anger in this thread, I'm sure it's there.

Wouldn't it be better to have him show up so you could yell at him?