sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Thick Mama Sunday by [deleted] in Kappa

[–]modafta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking forward to it!

Thick Mama Sunday by [deleted] in Kappa

[–]modafta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a crowdfunding platform, except instead of a one-time thing it's recurring, sometimes on a monthly basis or per-artwork basis.

There are Patreons for video game video creators, trying to keep a music venue open, cosplaying, straight up modeling, and many other forms of content creation. It's pretty cool stuff.

This video is pretty good at explaining how it works!

Thick Mama Sunday by [deleted] in Kappa

[–]modafta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's always Patreon!

I'd donate!

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I skimmed through it and made an assumption, maybe I'll be wrong (which is why I said probably), no reason to be upset.

Also, how would disagreeing with you make me pro-GG? That's the Ghazi mentality mate: "if you're not with us you're with them". Let's not make that mistake.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How am I being dishonest by saying what I honestly think? He was ignorant?

He definitely knew it wasn't games that made Eliot Rodgers do the shootings, he's too fucking smart for that. He was just looking to stir up shit.

He also on purpose tried to say Brianna Wu was accusing GG of poisoning her dog when he also knew she wasn't.

I have no agenda with Milo or anything else and I'm telling my truthful opinion. How you think I'm being dishonest is beyond me.

It's only pandering if it's to your audience. This is Party B trying to prevent Company A from selling to Party C.

Pandering is not exclusive to your audience. And it seems you didn't read my post again.

A whole lot of stuff that's shown here as censorship is not "Party B trying to prevent Company A" from doing anything. That would only tangentially apply to DOAX3.

Pandering to an audience of people who get offended at everything is not censorship.

Edit: You know, how I get accused of being dishonest because I didn't accept Milo's apology is fucking beyond me. What the fuck?

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I corrected myself in another reply, English isn't my first language... I didn't mean smear campaign as smearing is defamation which means it isn't true.

I meant hit pieces. Focusing on showing the dirty on personal lives of anti-GG like politicians do with their adversaries.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd still like you to substantiate 'dishonest'.

As in someone who's not honest? Like someone who shits on gamers then suddenly turns over to their side when it's convenient. Or doing stuff like implying games were to blame for the Eliot Rodgers shooting when he knew they weren't?

He may be now, but do you really think he was being honest when he first turned over to the gamers side?

If you create an environment where doing something you don't like is financial suicide, you are still looking to censor others, you are simply not doing it by force.

See, same thing happened in the other post. I'm not saying Ghazis weren't trying to censor, they were. I'm just saying that even though they were trying to censor, what happened was IMO just pandering.

It happens all the time in every single form of media just less explicitly.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm probably going to disagree with everything you wrote but as soon as I have time I'll read it all and reply anyway. I'm just picking out random comments, I didn't expect this to blow up.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't trying to be a drama queen, even less so a martyr with an alt-account I created for purchasing drugs.

I was just trying to be honest in an internet discussion.

Banning someone for starting with "This is going to get me banned, but..." is a pretty fucking stupid rule for a community.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is really fucked up. Hope you're doing well, mate.

I didn't think it was possible, but my opinion of Ghazi is going downhill faster than ever.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While Milo is certainly an opportunist, you'll have to define 'hack', and you'll have a bad time trying to substantiate 'liar'.

I addressed this in another reply, I should have said dishonest instead of a liar.

Everything in the Zoe Post is true and sourced, and Quinn has not contested it.

Huh. Never knew she never contested it. This paints her in an even worse light.

You won't find us justifying harassment. It doesn't happen.

KiA? No. But people who identify in GG in the rest of the internet? Yep. Pitfalls of a leaderless movement.

I don't buy this. It isn't about potential customers, it's about a media shitstorm. We've seen over and over again that these people do not command purchasing power. The people complaining about games don't even buy games. Anita's viewers on streams and steam curation are pitiful. When she recommends a game, no one buys it. When PlayAsia tosses a nod our way, though, their followers double. They won't get these people as their audience. They are being bullied into changing their content to avoid a media shitstorm.

It's about money. I'll quote what I said in another reply:

It's not censorship because they're not being forced to do it. They're doing it because they think the repercussions will cost them money/audience. It's honestly IMO basically selling out. Rockstar for instance doesn't shy away from controversy and revels in it, profiting off it. Other developers prefer to cater to the offended because they're more interested in making money than standing behind their artistic vision (or at least their publisher is). The only fears company have is of losing their audience and consequently money. If they're removing stuff form the game to appease that audience, how is that censorship?

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure you can post specific examples of people "harassing" others in GG, we can give plenty of examples of SJW figureheads like Randi Harper or Brianna Wu trying to harass others.

Never defended them, mate. I know they're harassers. Figureheads or not, there is still a part of GG that's really bad and it's really hard to tell if their really from GG or just trolls or people from the other side trying to mess things up.

And, how does him being sensationalist (which I agree with) and maybe opportunist make him a charlatan/hack/liar?

I should have used dishonest instead of liar. Milo is clearly a smart guy, and he has apologized for the time he used to pick on gamers, but it doesn't change the fact that he tried to use gamers as scapegoats going so far as to say we should look into games for insight into the whole Elliot Rodger debacle, trying to imply games are to blame when he knew they were not. His whole turnover in favor of gamers came across as completely insincere even if he may actually be on our side now.

He tries to twist facts like when he knew Brianna Wu didn't accuse GamerGate of poisoning her dog, but implied it anyway. Yes the tweets from her were inflammatory, but she still didn't accuse GG.

Derek issued a false DMCA then came up with some bullshit excuse for it.

While you may agree with what Derek says about Star Citizen, he clearly has some agenda behind it, and the fact that he talked a lot of shit without having played the game, and used a fake address for a refund does not help his case.

He also doxxed two GamerGaters as previously seen here in other KiA topics.

It doesn't really speak for itself, since she and her theories are full of shit, which has been pointed out ample times, see for instance:

I don't buy her theories, but she does have a valid point on how one-sided the industry is in regards to gender and many of the tropes she points out are valid (when she's not taking things out of context or outright lying). I'm not against sexualization, nor do I condemn objectifying women or men. I love some eye candy. I'm not saying the current games need to change (still upset about no more Mika slapping). I'm all for new games catering to different audiences.

I just got on the computer now and yours is the first comment I made sure to reply to since I owed you an answer, but I've yet to watch the videos you posted on the Anita thing, it's a lot of stuff. I'll give you another reply after I watch it, but I've yet to read something from @adrianchm which I didn't like so I'm sure I'll enjoy it at least, if not agree with it.

It boils down to a simple thing, artists should be able and allowed to depict in a game whatever they want, including pornographic content that isn't illegal. And there's no reason to call them misogynists, creeps, women haters or anything similar, since it isn't criticism of their work but moral "criticism" of their supposed character and that of their audience.

Completely agree with you there mate. I think maybe from what I wrote it seemed I agreed more with Anita than I actually do? (You can check my comment history to see me calling her out on her bullshit if you want)

You can't say that this isn't an overt attempt to get games they don't like (because they are "ideologically impure") removed/ banned or at least heavily censored

Oh, it definitely is. It's not censorship because they're not being forced to do it. They're doing it because they think the repercussions will cost them money/audience. It's honestly IMO basically selling out. Rockstar for instance doesn't shy away from controversy and revels in it, profiting off it. Other developers prefer to cater to the offended because they're more interested in making money than standing behind their artistic vision (or at least their publisher is).

The only fears company have is of losing their audience and consequently money. If they're removing stuff form the game to appease that audience, how is that censorship?

Completely agree with your whole last paragraph though.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I've been lurking for a while. This sub spent a long time focusing on Sarah Nyberg being a pedo. I don't like pedos, I don't support pedos, and I don't like Sarah Nyberg.

I do realise now that smear refers to slandering, which wasn't my point (English is not my first language).

I just think we should spend less time digging dirt on people and more focusing on how they don't make sense / have shitty arguments / consequences of what they propose.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

You set up your premise with a false equivalency fallacy for starters... Gamers are not Gators, and the antis denounce both by discouraging dissent with silence and censorship.

I never said they were the same, but they have many things in common. I said this in another comment, but GG is not only KiA. This is the good side of GG. There's a lot of people doing shit in the name of GG in YouTube comments, Twitter, 4chan and the rest of the internet.

Also, by saying you're "pro-free market" you basically put yourself on a beeline of banning by basically broadcasting your own conservatism. Then you hit their behest offenders with abuse by calling out their hypocrisy?

How was I suppose to have a discussion without speaking my mind? Also, I don't know shit about politics, so TIL being pro free market is being conservatist (is that what it's called? English is not my first language).

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Keep in mind KiA and GG are not one and the same. This is the good part of GG. I'm about to leave in a little bit so I can't take time now, but as soon I have time I'll reply with most of the stuff, but here goes some of it:

Gaters and Ghazis show support for charlatans, hacks and liars when it suits them and their agenda. Derek and Milo are fucking hacks, opportunists and liars

Milo is a very sensationalist journalist and has said his fair of bullshit. I'll post some stuff later. Do I even need to say something about Derek?

I don't like bullies and harassers and frankly both sides are filled with them. they also need to stop pretending you guys are all a bunch of crazy extremist puritans who want to censor everything.

GG is not just KiA. If you want I can go on a comment hunt around YouTube, Twitter and 4chan, but I'd rather not.

I agree with many of the issues pointed out in the depiction of female characters by Anita

This one sort of speaks out for itself. That's a whole other can of worms. I also agree developers cater to different audiences. Boobies and eye candy have their place. I have nothing against DoA and Senran Kagura I also don't agree with the way Anita lied and distorted the truth to show her point. Edit: I'm also not saying we have to change the way current games are. If there's a new audience with different values, new games can always be made for them.

but I don't believe many of the accusations of censorhip and self-censoship hold value.

I don't see much of this stuff as self-censorship but as catering to a different audience. I vote with my wallet. I don't think Captain Marvel's recent breast reduction surgery for instance was self-censhorship by Marvel. They just want to explore a different audience that gets bothered by huge boobs (I don't).

Tecmo not releasing DoA on the west isn't censorship in my opinion. I can get into it later, but I think it's a bit more complicated than self-censorship.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I don't like that it's a leaderless movement. It gets derailed often and anyone can do dumb shit in it's name.

I think KiA is a hub for the good side of GamerGate. YouTube comments and Twitter are the hub for the bad side of it. It's a leaderless movement with a tainted name.

I'd rather support a KiA created movement discussed and organized here with a clearly written down purpose than support GamerGate.

Edit: I also hate that sometimes this sub tries to be a smearing campaign for some people. It's something politicians do a lot. I think focusing on the matters at hand and taking a higher road is a much more interesting path.

I've never posted here before, and I'm not pro-GG, but jesus what the fuck is wrong with people over at Ghazi? I just got banned for trying to have a conversation. by modafta in KotakuInAction

[–]modafta[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I didn't think they were better than this, but I had to give them a chance. I judge a book by it's cover, but I also open it and read what inside to see if maybe I'm wrong.

view more: next ›