Adam Baldwin and Conventions

[CorporalCaptain]

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

If you're the one in charge of who gets to attend the convention, and you think it would be better, you can let the guy attend, OK?

For others, though, it's not worth the disruption and the issues that go along with that, if you expect there to be a lot of yelling.

And if you let the guy attend, and the crowd gets out of control, people might be wondering why you should be in charge of that.

Ya dig?

 

[JD5000]

I suppose raging on a keyboard is safer for everyone involved.

I mean, if shit really got serious at a Con, it would just be a bunch of slapping and flailing and stress-induced bloody noses anyway. I'd rather see the issue addressed by people that don't have a keyboard and a computer screen in front of them, on both sides.

 

[Amaris]

It essentially comes down three questions:

* "Is someone going to start a whole bunch of shit if I bring this guy/girl here?"

* "Will the benefits outweigh the cost?"

* "Am I willing to take on the responsibility of handling this in a room filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated fans?"

If the answer is no for any of those questions, then one would be foolish to go on ahead with the booking. That's just smart sense.

 

[JD5000]

In the meantime, people just tap, tick, and click away on their keyboards and yet another important social issue goes generally unresolved.

*shrug* What can you do.

Carry on, friends.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Conventions have to deal with a lot. Keeping the guests, staff and convention goers safe. Keeping things under control so the hotel or convention center doesn't throw them out. Plus they would like to make a profit, it costs a lot of money to run these things and unless it's run by a company they probably just make enough to run next year's convention.

 

[Amaris]

In the meantime, people just tap, tick, and click away on their keyboards and yet another important social issue goes generally unresolved.

*shrug* What can you do.

Carry on, friends.

Never underestimate the power of those tapping keys, my friend.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In the meantime, people just tap, tick, and click away on their keyboards and yet another important social issue goes generally unresolved.

*shrug* What can you do.

Carry on, friends.

I'm not sure what you mean. With respect to the topics raised in this thread, the line between accurate information and misinformation is clear.

You can't force people to be interested in the truth, and you can't force people to be reasonable. Setting the bar for considering these sorts of issues resolved at getting people to universally agree on what the facts are is ridiculously and impractically high. Derailers gonna derail. Detractors gonna detract. Spreaders of lies gonna spread lies.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is sufficiently resolved.

 

[BigJake]

What are the consequences, in your opinion?

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR KIN

Or, alternatively, just tell people who plainly don't know what they're talking about to piss off. Probably the better option.

(Incidentally, how is Racism working out since you cured it by speaking Spanish at the office? I'm curious.)

 

[JD5000]

(Incidentally, how is Racism working out since you cured it by speaking Spanish at the office? I'm curious.)

err...great?

 

[Zaku]

^ 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?

Now you are just trolling.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

What's Sarkeesian lying about then?

Claiming several times on camera that she is a gamer and a huge fan of games when there is video of her saying otherwise during a presentation in 2010. I guess she could have changed her mind entirely in a matter of 2 years or so, but is that likely?

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734[/yt]

So I guess whether you believe her or not comes down to a matter of personal trust. I don't trust people who are shown to have position A, then turn around and claim to have the opposite position. Especially when the having opposite position is a direct benefit to the person holding it, either by making the person money or winning an election.

It has nothing to do with Anita's gender. I felt the same about Mitt Romney, and his failed attempts to try to convince voters that he really really cares about poverty.

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

Never questioned their existence. I've also repeatedly stated that the threats are unacceptable, and should be investigated and prosecuted. I simply disagree with putting the threats out on Twitter for all the world to see, and question the motivations and maturity of anybody who would.

How come you're objecting to this kickstarter specifically?

Not at all. I object to any and all kickstarter scams where the product delivered either doesn't work the way advertised, or in Anita's case the analysis is shoddy at best.

Don't even get me started on that stupid hoverboard!

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

I love Elizabeth Warren. She is female. She says things a lot of guys, especially ones in the banking sector, do not like.

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.

What???

Seriously. That sentence made no sense. I don't constantly mention Anita, and have had only one or two conversations about her here.

As for the death and rape threats, are you saying those excuse the lies? I've furnished plenty of evidence here. Just not enough to convince people here, which is just fine. I have no problem with people not agreeing with me.

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.

So again, guilt by association. Also, amusing that you say Gamergate is thin-skinned while being incredibly thin-skinned yourself about supposed misogyny.

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.

Here is where I disagree. Most mass shooters were men, yes. They were also mostly men with serious psychological issues, in a society where saturated with guns and violence. Men are far more likely to suffer from undiagnosed and untreated mental illness than women, and have a much higher rate of substance abuse and alcoholism.

What do shootings have to do with masculinity or being a man? Are you saying the shooters did what they did to appear more manly? That does sound insane.

By contrast, the MRA reaction to that tweet was quite insane.)

How is that an MRA reaction???

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:

WTF are you talking about?

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.

So in other words, I am wrong because you think I am wrong, and for no other reason. Okay.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

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.

My female patients are doing just fine. Thank you for your concern. I'll be sure to let them know that I committed the sin of disagreeing with you.

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.

First, that post was on page 2. Second, I was speaking of legitimate threats, and not just Twitter badassery or emailed threats that don't amount to anything. You know, like a person showing up at her home, calling her, stalking, ect. If there is proof of these actually occurring, please share, and I will gladly admit I was wrong.

As for the Twitter threats, I have condemned them. However, there are millions of people on Twitter, and millions of them receive death threats. I've had death threats on Twitter and other places. I know quite a few women who have received death threats, as well as weird, creepy, rapey threats. Why didn't they get their own Dateline special? Probably because they legitimately believe women can take care of their own problems, and deal with adversity in life without crying for support from the public.

I know. What a misogynistic thing to say!

Anyway, I think we should all agree to disagree on this. The discussion has probably outlived it's welcome.

One further thing. I hate to dredge up the past, but there were absolutely no cries of misogyny or outrage when this was posted about my fiance.

 

[Avon]

remember to lift with your back. goalposts can get heavy. especially when they're moved so often.

 

[Manticore]

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.

My female patients are doing just fine. Thank you for your concern. I'll be sure to let them know that I committed the sin of disagreeing with you.

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.

First, that post was on page 2. Second, I was speaking of legitimate threats, and not just Twitter badassery or emailed threats that don't amount to anything. You know, like a person showing up at her home, calling her, stalking, ect. If there is proof of these actually occurring, please share, and I will gladly admit I was wrong.

As for the Twitter threats, I have condemned them. However, there are millions of people on Twitter, and millions of them receive death threats. I've had death threats on Twitter and other places. I know quite a few women who have received death threats, as well as weird, creepy, rapey threats. Why didn't they get their own Dateline special? Probably because they legitimately believe women can take care of their own problems, and deal with adversity in life without crying for support from the public.

I know. What a misogynistic thing to say!

Anyway, I think we should all agree to disagree on this. The discussion has probably outlived it's welcome.

So now you're the arbiter of whether or not threats are legitimate or no?

There are such things as anonymous threats, and given that she's a public figure, that's a bit more serious than threats made against non-public individuals.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I guess she could have changed her mind entirely in a matter of 2 years or so, but is that likely?

Change in a what a person thinks over a span of years?!? Unheard of!

I've entirely changed my opinions regarding certain posters within the past two years, as I've learned more about them and/or as they've changed over time.

Speaking of change:

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

Never questioned their existence.

there have been claims of threats being made by Sarkeesian and others with no proof of the threats existing

Just so we're clear, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/question, the relevant sense of the verb "question," the one, you know, that { Emilia } was using:

Full Definition of QUESTION
transitive verb
[...]
3 a : doubt, dispute

That's a complete flip-flop over a span of three days and a couple of hours or so, a far cry from two years!

I don't trust people who are shown to have position A, then turn around and claim to have the opposite position.

Amazing!

 

[Awesome Possum]

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.

My female patients are doing just fine. Thank you for your concern. I'll be sure to let them know that I committed the sin of disagreeing with you.

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.

First, that post was on page 2. Second, I was speaking of legitimate threats, and not just Twitter badassery or emailed threats that don't amount to anything. You know, like a person showing up at her home, calling her, stalking, ect. If there is proof of these actually occurring, please share, and I will gladly admit I was wrong.

As for the Twitter threats, I have condemned them. However, there are millions of people on Twitter, and millions of them receive death threats. I've had death threats on Twitter and other places. I know quite a few women who have received death threats, as well as weird, creepy, rapey threats. Why didn't they get their own Dateline special? Probably because they legitimately believe women can take care of their own problems, and deal with adversity in life without crying for support from the public.

I know. What a misogynistic thing to say!

Anyway, I think we should all agree to disagree on this. The discussion has probably outlived it's welcome.

You are not helping your case, you're just making yourself look worse.

 

[Marc]

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.

My female patients are doing just fine. Thank you for your concern. I'll be sure to let them know that I committed the sin of disagreeing with you.

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.

First, that post was on page 2. Second, I was speaking of legitimate threats, and not just Twitter badassery or emailed threats that don't amount to anything. You know, like a person showing up at her home, calling her, stalking, ect. If there is proof of these actually occurring, please share, and I will gladly admit I was wrong.

As for the Twitter threats, I have condemned them. However, there are millions of people on Twitter, and millions of them receive death threats. I've had death threats on Twitter and other places. I know quite a few women who have received death threats, as well as weird, creepy, rapey threats. Why didn't they get their own Dateline special? Probably because they legitimately believe women can take care of their own problems, and deal with adversity in life without crying for support from the public.

I know. What a misogynistic thing to say!

Anyway, I think we should all agree to disagree on this. The discussion has probably outlived it's welcome.

One further thing. I hate to dredge up the past, but there were absolutely no cries of misogyny or outrage when this was posted about my fiance.

Wow digging up a 2 year old post by a poster who hasn't been around in quite some time, in a forum that's been closed under TNZ (and posts from tnz aren't supposed to be linking in outside forums).

Well done.


A wiseman once said, the first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop.

 

[JD5000]

Well I BELIEVE the sky is a hazy shade of chartreuse.

 

[BigJake]

Starting out with a latterly point first:

Here is where I disagree. Most mass shooters were men, yes. They were also mostly men with serious psychological issues, in a society where saturated with guns and violence. Men are far more likely to suffer from undiagnosed and untreated mental illness than women, and have a much higher rate of substance abuse and alcoholism.

Because this is the tragedy of the road not taken, right here. This is the first actually interesting thing you have said on this thread, and it's quite interesting, because it's very worthwhile to wonder why men would be more likely to have undiagnosed mental illnesses and (if in fact this is so) higher rates of substance abuse and alcholism.

Indeed, to a person not wrapped up in bizarre ranting hatred of Anita Sarkeesian and who did not start from the defensive and stupid kneejerk assumption that she was denigrating men, it could go a long way toward clarifying what "toxic masculinity" might concretely mean. For example, these facts could reflect a definition of masculinity that stigmatizes mental illness and the acknowledgement of it, and generally prevents men from reaching out and seeking help (something which is in fact pretty commonly attested and has been for a long time; Nixon was not expressing a rare view when he famously quipped that he'd do anything to stay in public life "except see a shrink").

There's a lot of interesting stuff to unpack there and talk about there, a lot of possible explanations. Maybe my initital guess is right, maybe not; maybe Anita's right, maybe not. Unfortunately, you and I are not going to have that conversation, because you poisoned that well by going straight for the assumption that Anita had to be engaged in the "sexist" denigration of men (because you can obviously never resist going for the crazy, loaded assumption where she's concerned). And just generally, the path you chose to get to this point has left your credibility a smoking wreckage around you and I find that I'm frankly sick of you. So, to get the other stuff out of the way:

Never questioned their existence. I've also repeatedly stated that the threats are unacceptable, and should be investigated and prosecuted.

A worthless prevarication, since you started out lying about them and continue to attempt to minimize them and pretend that they should be no big deal.

Much like you're still trying to pretend Sarkeesian "scammed" people on Kickstarter because you disagree with her.

I love Elizabeth Warren. She is female. She says things a lot of guys, especially ones in the banking sector, do not like.

This is like saying that you can't be a racist because you voted for Obama. That's a very stupid sort of thing to say.

Seriously. That sentence made no sense.

And now you can add "playing dumb" to your long list of futile rhetorical contortions and evasions in this thread.

As for the death and rape threats, are you saying those excuse the lies? I've furnished plenty of evidence here.Just not enough to convince people here, which is just fine. I have no problem with people not agreeing with me.

No, you mistakenly think recycling out-of-date slanders constitutes "evidence" -- in fact you're still trying to call Sarkeesian a liar even now despite the case for your own honesty having collapsed at the first hurdle. And others don't believe you... because not being believed is what happens when you trade in debunked lies. You did not furnish a jot of credible evidence in the Case of Anita Sarkeesian and the Feminist Kickstarter Swindle; you outright lied, and then spent page after page transparently contorting and evading and lying about having lied, all while still sticking to your central lie.

You are not in a position of magnanimously conceding anything to the people who are unimpressed by this. Your behaviour is unacceptable, hateful and dishonest and people have told you so for good reason.

Also, amusing that you say Gamergate is thin-skinned while being incredibly thin-skinned yourself about supposed misogyny.

Oh, and there's Mister Rubber-and-Glue again, for a final flourish!

*sigh*

So long, hope you make better choices in the future.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What's Sarkeesian lying about then?

Claiming several times on camera that she is a gamer and a huge fan of games when there is video of her saying otherwise during a presentation in 2010. I guess she could have changed her mind entirely in a matter of 2 years or so, but is that likely?

Uh, yes, it's very likely, because as she says in the video you just posted, she "had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this" ("this" being her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games YouTube series). It's seems completely plausible that in the process of studying numerous games for her web series, she took a liking to playing them, while still being able to point out some of their faults in their depiction of women.

I know plenty of men and women who weren't gamers but got into it very fast after being introduced to them. Every first time gamer by default wasn't one the moment before, so obviously they changed their minds.

Beyond that, that's seriously the "gotcha!" you have on her? That she changed her mind on liking video games, or that she secretly doesn't like them but says she does? That's your smoking gun? Who gives a shit? Woodward and Bernstein you are not.

So I guess whether you believe her or not comes down to a matter of personal trust. I don't trust people who are shown to have position A, then turn around and claim to have the opposite position.

How do you trust yourself with memorizing your PIN or SSN then, because you've flip-flopped more than kids feet at the beach?

Never questioned their existence.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=10631794&postcount=25

I simply disagree with putting the threats out on Twitter for all the world to see, and question the motivations and maturity of anybody who would.

The threats were already on Twitter. You've made a huge deal about how Twitter threats "don't count," and now you're criticizing her for re-posting them when they were already public? She didn't publicize them first, and even if she had, who the fuck cares? Are we concerning ourselves with protecting the privacy of guys who make public death and rape threats online?

I object to any and all kickstarter scams where the product delivered either doesn't work the way advertised, or in Anita's case the analysis is shoddy at best.

That's between her and the people who funded her Kickstarter campaign, and I haven't seen any of them suing her for fraud, or having the grounds to do so. In fact the general consensus from non-GamerGater idiots seems to be that it was an insightful series.

First, that post was on page 2.

Wow, you showed me with that genius rebuttal. I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Locutus.

Except, you know, you can choose different posts per page settings, and your post was on Page-1 for me just like I said. So even that incredibly stupid and petty "victory" eludes you.

Second, I was speaking of legitimate threats, and not just Twitter badassery or emailed threats that don't amount to anything. You know, like a person showing up at her home, calling her, stalking, ect. If there is proof of these actually occurring, please share, and I will gladly admit I was wrong.

So threatening to do a mass shooting at an event you are attending, with the exact details of the time and location doesn't count?

How about posting her and her parent's addresses online and threatening to murder them and murder and rape her?

These Tweets are super graphic and repulsive, so read at your own risk:

(click to enlarge)

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6...n-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats

In what way is a threatening phone call functionally different from the Tweets above made against her and her parents using their actual addresses? Also, by a person willing to use their actual name, which implies that he doesn't really give a fuck about the consequences.

I know quite a few women who have received death threats, as well as weird, creepy, rapey threats. Why didn't they get their own Dateline special? Probably because they legitimately believe women can take care of their own problems, and deal with adversity in life without crying for support from the public.

She got her own Dateline special because Dateline was interested in the story and how it related to the larger GamerGate story. You seem to be under the impression that she arranged for the interview to take place using her mystical powers of womanly deception instead of Dateline seeking her out.

Your lack of empathy for her having to go through these threats is repulsive, regardless of your feelings about her stances on gaming and misogyny. Despite claiming to condemn the threats, you've dismissed them and her completely justified reaction to them at every turn.

Anyway, I think we should all agree to disagree on this. The discussion has probably outlived it's welcome.

LOL, yeah, because your argument sucks. But wait, you have to edit one more completely unrelated and poorly thought out dig in there.

One further thing. I hate to dredge up the past, but there were absolutely no cries of misogyny or outrage when this was posted about my fiance.

1) Reposting discussions from TNZ for the purpose of argument is against the rules.
2) Reposting a completely unrelated thread from going on nearly three years ago is incredibly stupid.
3) I wasn't even involved in that thread, so am I supposed to feel bad about not condemning something I didn't know about from nearly three years ago?
4) There were three posts immediately after the one attacking your girlfriend's pic that criticized the person who said it (who has no involvement in this argument), so your point doesn't even make sense, as usual.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6723836&postcount=430
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6724178&postcount=433
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6727151&postcount=443

Superbowl's starting, so I bid you farewell.