firehose

emitter-of-learjets:

harry potter is adopted by sirius

Orphan is the New Black

grandpafucker:

lifeisducky:

yeltumpar:

I

I love how they respond to him, as if he is actually a captain, even more.

Nasa confirmed for huge fucking nerds

thebobblehat:

Those two are going to turn into some anime magical girl forms or something

applebutterbomb:

avaruuskala:

In 10 years, I hope we can still be drinking tea together like we are now

This is so lovely it should be framed

Walter Hege, Erechtheion, The Porch of the Caryatids, Greece, 1928

This is U.C. Berkeley's Chancellor, Nicholas Dirks.

Yesterday Chancellor Dirks sent an email about free speech to Berkeley students, faculty, and staff. In today's competitive publishing environment it is astonishingly difficult to distinguish yourself as an academic by being wrong about free speech, but Chancellor Dirks is equal to the challenge. His email is so very bad on every level — legally, logically, rhetorically, and philosophically — that it deserves scrutiny.

Let's take Chancellor Dirks' email bit by bit.

Dear Campus Community,

This Fall marks the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, which made the right to free expression of ideas a signature issue for our campus, and indeed for universities around the world.

So far, so good. Berkeley was the center of the campus free speech movement, and deserves recognition for it.

Free speech is the cornerstone of our nation and society – which is precisely why the founders of the country made it the First Amendment to the Constitution.

OK. Yes, free expression is the cornerstone of American society. The "founders of the country made it the First Amendment" is awkward and imprecise writing — the founders recognized the rights to free expression and freedom of worship and protected them in what became the First Amendment. But I guess we can let that pass.

For a half century now, our University has been a symbol and embodiment of that ideal.

Ehhh, sort of, partially. Berkeley's speech codes are not unusually bad. As you can see from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's page on them, Berkeley has some chillingly ambiguous speech policies, and has had its share of problematical censorship incidents. Regrettably, a mediocre free speech record does not distinguish Berkeley from the mainstream of American academia.

As we honor this turning point in our history,

Wait. What turning point? Is an anniversary a turning point? We haven't established — or even stated — that Berkeley is facing a turning point. This is a null-phrase.

it is important that we recognize the broader social context required in order for free speech to thrive.

Wuh-oh.

"Context" is the mother of prevarication.

The only "context required" for free speech to thrive is a society governed by the rule of law, educated about its rights and willing to enforce them.

For free speech to have meaning it must not just be tolerated, it must also be heard, listened to, engaged and debated.

No.

First, observe the hidden premise Chancellor Dirks is presenting — that free speech must have "meaning." This implies that speech that does not have "meaning" — as defined, one presumes, by Chancellor Dirks or a committee of people like him — then it is not "free speech," and perhaps is not entitled to protection. Dirks is smuggling a vague and easily malleable precondition to free speech.

There is no such precondition. Our rights are not limited by some free-floating test of merit or meaning. As the United States Supreme Court recently said:

The Government thus proposes that a claim of categorical exclusion should be considered under a simple balancing test: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” Brief for United States 8; see also id., at 12.

As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

Moreover, nobody need listen to, engage, or debate speech for it to be entitled to protection. If nobody wants to read, engage with, or debate the points I make in this post, I am still entitled to make them. Chancellor Dirks is implying that speech must meet an idealized model to be entitled to full protection. It doesn't. Thank goodness — because then the people who control the model control the speech.

Let's move on to his next proposition.

Yet this is easier said than done, for the boundaries between protected and unprotected speech, between free speech and political advocacy, between the campus and the classroom, between debate and demagoguery, between freedom and responsibility, have never been fully settled.

No. Absolutely not.

Chancellor Dirks is using a variation on a common censor's trick — saying "well, the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech, and sometimes the line is blurry" to justify broad restrictions. This is akin to me walking up to you, punching you in the face without warning, and saying "well, not all violence is prohibited. Under some circumstances it is permissible."

Yes, the First Amendment doesn't protect everything. Yes, not every possible First Amendment question has been resolved. Yes, sometimes First Amendment analysis is complex. But most often we deal in questions that have conclusive answers. Universities would like to pretend otherwise, and strive for ambiguity where there is none, but most campus speech issues are easily resolved by anyone sincerely concerned with the rule of law. Can students hand out the United States Constitution outside of an arbitrary "free speech zone? Yes. Can public schools punish students for mere crass insults? No.

Let's turn back to some of the distinctions in that sentence from Chancellor Dirks.

between free speech and political advocacy

This proposed distinction is a sign of civic illiteracy. Political advocacy is not distinct from free speech. Political advocacy is the apotheosis of free speech. "Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment, which 'was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,'” as the Supreme Court has said. Chancellor Dirks' proposed distinction is particularly galling because the Berkeley free speech movement itself was a rejection of the argument that political advocacy was unsuited for the campus.

between debate and demagoguery

There is no "demagoguery" exception to the First Amendment. Once again, Chancellor Dirks is suggesting that expression must meet an idealized idea of speech to be protected. That's wrong. "Demagoguery" might fall outside the First Amendment, but only if it satisfies well-established exceptions — such as speech posing a clear and present danger of imminent serious lawless action.

freedom and responsibility

Advocates of "contextual" views of the First Amendment like to talk about how rights are balanced by responsibilities. But the rule of law does not support this rhetorical flourish. The Constitution imposes responsibilities on the government and rights on the people. There may be a moral responsibility to speak decently, but that responsibility is enforced by the marketplace of ideas, not by the state. Nothing about Fred Phelps' speech was morally responsible, but it was protected nonetheless.

As a consequence, when issues are inherently divisive, controversial and capable of arousing strong feelings, the commitment to free speech and expression can lead to division and divisiveness that undermine a community’s foundation.

This is very badly written. More importantly, it is legally incoherent and misleading. If a community is build upon the rule of law and the rights of the people, evil speech does not threaten its foundations. If the state promotes constitutional values and citizens respect them, it is not divisive to recognize that we can condemn cruel or hurtful speech without banning it. It is only when the state arrogates to itself the right to pick and choose what speech is permitted — to "balance" the interests of the speaker and the interests of the community — that the foundations begin to crumble. That's because such a balancing is inherently inconsistent with a free and self-governing people.

This fall, like every fall, there will be no shortage of issues to animate and engage us all. Our capacity to maintain that delicate balance between communal interests and free expression, between openness of thought and the requirements and disciplines of academic knowledge, will be tested anew.

The rule of law permits no "delicate" balancing between "communal interests" and free speech. As the Supreme Court noted in the quote above, the framers struck that balance in recognizing and protecting the right of free speech in the First Amendment. And though the academy may require some limits on speech to operate, no government employees enjoy such robust speech protections as university employees.

Specifically, we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so,

No. Absolutely not. Flat wrong.

Chancellor Dirks may be alluding to the statutory right to an education free of harassment. But that statutory right is narrow and yields to the strictures of the First Amendment. Students have a right to an environment free of "harassment" — but for these purposes harassment means "abuse sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent such that it denies or limits the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program." It does not mean "words that hurt my feelings." And a good thing, to. The University of California has demonstrated that, given the opportunity, it will silence political speech on the grounds that it makes people feel "unsafe." Nor is there any right to "feel respected." You can't confer that right on someone without depriving everyone else of their right to free expression and free association. Does a student who believes in the inherent inferiority of some races enjoy a right to "feel respected?" No. Only rights are entitled to respect, and respect is expressed not through affirming words but through the rule of law.

and this in turn requires that people treat each other with civility.

No.

Civility is an admirable value. It is right and fit that we ask it of each other and impose social consequences upon the uncivil. But speech need not be civil to be entitled to robust protection. Berkeley's free speech movement did not seek to protect civil speech; the Vietnam war was not an occasion for civility. Paul Robert Cohen's "Fuck the Draft" jacket was uncivil, but was protected by the First Amendment nonetheless. There is nothing civil about burning the flag or picketing a funeral or being a racist, but those things are protected.

Simply put, courteousness and respect in words and deeds are basic preconditions to any meaningful exchange of ideas.

Here you see Chancellor Dirks weave his tricks together. Only "meaningful" speech is worthy of protection, and only "courteous" speech is meaningful. Therefore "discourteous" and "disrespectful" speech may be punished. What speech will be deemed too discourteous or too disrespectful? That depends upon the political preferences of the people administering the rules. If those in power like your speech, it will be protected. In fact it may be protected beyond the requirements of the First Amendment. Witness, for example, a University of California school dealing with a professor who assaulted protestors and took their sign by condemning the protestors. But if those in power don't like your speech — well. Think you have the right to burn the flag, because the United States Supreme Court says you do? That depends on the flag, friend. If your public university favors the ideas expressed in the flag you may find yourself disciplined.

In this sense, free speech and civility are two sides of a single coin – the coin of open, democratic society.

This statement is arguable if "this sense" means "as an idealized vision of speech to which I'd like to encourage people to aspire." As a statement of rights, it's empty and wrong. Civility is not weighed equally with free speech. It is not a prerequisite of free speech. It is a value, an idea, to be tested in the marketplace of ideas with other vales. Free speech is often uncivil. Lenny Bruce was uncivil. "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" was uncivil. "I have not yet begun to fight" was uncivil. "I called you naughty darling because I do not like that other world" was uncivil. "Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit; so let it be done!" was uncivil. The equality of all humans regardless of station has always been a deeply uncivil idea, because "civil" usually means "that which makes me comfortable." Comfortable people paint nice watercolors but otherwise don't accomplish much.

Insofar as we wish to honor the ideal of Free Speech, therefore, we should do so by exercising it graciously.

Pardon my incivility, Chancellor Dirks, but I don't give a shit whether you wish to honor an ideal; I care whether you will comply with the law. If you don't, you should be compelled to do so at the point of a lawsuit. You will find litigation rather uncivil.

This is true not just of political speech on Sproul Plaza, but also in our everyday interactions with each other – in the classroom, in the office, and in the lab.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Dirks
Chancellor

What should we fear more — that we might encounter rude people in the classroom, the office, and the lab, or that the state aspires to regulate our interactions in all of those places?

I don't fault Chancellor Dirks for calling for civility. It is a good thing, a decent thing, a moral thing, to treat people as we would be treated. But it is not the role of the state — or its appointee, Chancellor Dirks — to police our speech to compel it.

Perhaps you think it's frivolous to subject a casual email to such scrutiny. Perhaps you think it's like proofreading your grandchild's thank-you note. Chancellor Dirks only meant to offer a warm and friendly aspirational statement, not a set of rules, you might say.

But like Chancellor Dirks, I care about context. His email doesn't come in a context in which free speech is safe. Rather, it comes in the context of the modern American university, at which free speech is increasingly threatened. Those threats come not just from the censorious appetites of university officials, but from the indifference of a generation of students. Chancellor Dirks isn't just asserting limits on speech that find no support in the law. He's encouraging the students under his tutelage to view speech as something the community should "balance." He's striking at the heart of free speech, which is how the community values it. As Learned Hand said:

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

People like Chancellor Dirks don't just seek to raise a generation of civil Americans. They seek to raise a generation of Americans who look to the state to tell them what speech is acceptable. This is vile and shameful.

Original Source

Lyerla has been in trouble before and finds himself in more after another arrest.

Former Green Bay Packers and Oregon Ducks tight end Colt Lyerla was arrested early Saturday morning in Oregon's Washington County on suspicion of driving under the influence of intoxicants, according to Molly Harbarger of the Oregonian.

Lyerla has been in trouble with the law before, having been arrested in 2013 for cocaine possession in Eugene, Ore. While the arrest report is not available, police have stated that Lyerla was suspected to be either high on drugs or prescription medications when he was pulled over in a traffic stop.

Mike Piellucci of SB Nation reported last week the former Oregon star went to the school because his family was promised a house and car among other things by an unnamed booster.

The Packers were Lyerla's most recent stop, but he did not make the final 53-man roster this season partially due to an injured left knee. He reached an injury settlement with the team, which will pay him through the first eight weeks and allow him to return to the NFL this season should the opportunity arise, ESPN reports.

Lyerla's court date is Sept. 17.

4chan might have introduced a DMCA policy, but Reddit goes farther: VentureBeat reports that the online community known as The Fappening has been dissolved by Reddit, in response to its use in posting and sharing many of the photos leaked from dozens of celebrities. This isn’t the first time Reddit has decided to take action to ban certain questionable communities from its site, as its previously killed other subreddits like Creepshots for similar invasions of privacy as well as banned well-known power users shown to enable such actions. ... Reddit system admin Jason Harvey (aka “alienth”) attempted to cool some of the fuss by starting that discussion about why the company decided to ban the subreddit. Most of it boils down to Reddit waiting too long to speak up about it before making the decision to ban, while assuming its users would mostly understand why it took place. ... “If Reddit is truly to be a platform that’s open in any way, it needs transparency when (heavy handed) actions such as these are taken,” said Reddit user SaidTheCanadian in response to Harvey, while also suggesting the company create a “public log” of sorts showing all banning actions as well as explanations for each instance of a banned community. “I don’t want to be part of a community where community voices are silenced without meaningful notice or explanation. (No one really does like that secret police feeling.)”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Not only is he eating cereal, he's repping cereal with his shirt. This man loves cereal more than we could imagine.

I love cereal. I probably eat cereal every day. I eat the boring stuff like Cheerios and the sweet stuff like Cinnamon Toast Crunch. I eat cereal plain, I eat cereal with milk. Cereal is great. It powers me through my life.

I do not love cereal as much as this fan at the Bucs-Panthers game:

Not only did he smuggle a box of Frosted Flakes past stadium security to eat straight from the box during the game -- well, we assume he smuggled it in, not many stadiums offer "full boxes of Frosted Flakes" as a concessions item -- he IS WEARING A CEREAL SHIRT. Where do you even buy cereal t-shirts? Shouldn't his cereal t-shirt have alerted stadium security to the presence of a rogue cereal box, possibly taking away from stadium concessions sales?

This man is not a fan of the Buccaneers or the Panthers. He is a fan of cereal. And for that decication, we salute him.

All you have to do is bro-lieve.

YEAAAHHHH WE LOVE FOOTBALL

YEEEAHHHHH LET'S RECITE LINES FROM TOP GUN AT EACH OTHER YEEEAAAAHHHH

YOU CAN BE MY WINGMAN ANY TIME YEEEAHHHH

This is some serious multitasking.

Yeah, we're just going to be watching this GIF for the rest of the day.

Crossovers must be tricky to develop - which fanbase do you cater specific mechanics to, and how much of each series' flavor do you implement while still making a coherent experience that can stand without its fanfare? Early talks concerning Hyrule...

The Falcons dropped the Saints in a 37-34 thriller and proved their offense is ready to dominate.

After suffering through a shocking 12 losses in 2013, the Atlanta Falcons needed to come out of the gates hot this season. They did exactly that against the division rival New Orleans Saints, leaning on an explosive offense to grab a back and forth 37-34 overtime victory.

Matt Bryant sent the game to overtime with a last second 51-yard field goal, then won the game with a 52-yarder less than two minutes into the extra period. That game winner was set up by Marques Colston, who fumbled the ball away on the Saints' first possession of overtime.

The two teams combined for 24 points and traded the lead four times during the fourth quarter alone. Mark Ingram's three-yard touchdown with 1:20 remaining looked as though it had handed New Orleans a win, but Matt Ryan led the Falcons 47 yards in eight plays to set up the tying field goal.

1. Atlanta's offense is back

Injuries and ineptitude kept the Falcons grounded for much of last season, but they looked spectacular to start 2014 against a New Orleans defense that ranked fourth in the league last season. Ryan set a career high with a 448 passing yards and added three touchdowns. Julio Jones and Roddy White combined for 188 yards and Devin Hester turned back the clock to add 99 yards through the air.

2. Both defenses could be in trouble

In fairness, these figure to be two of the most explosive offenses in the league, but 1,040 yards of combined yardage is not a good look for either defense. The Saints secondary was shredded despite the addition of big-money safety free agent Jairus Byrd. Both teams struggled to tackle in the open field and the two defensive fronts combined for just one sack.

3. The Saints backfield is still a committee

There was talk this offseason that Ingram was ready to step up and become the feature back that the Saints thought he would be when they took him 28th overall in 2011. While he did lead the team with 13 carries and scored a pair of critical fourth quarter touchdowns, Pierre Thomas and Khiry Robinson combined for 19 touches and appear as though they'll play integral roles in the offense. That Thomas tallied six receptions to Ingram's one means he's still the most reliable back in the passing game and could keep Ingram off the field on third downs.

Cool spin move, though:

Gibraltar is a British territory that measures all of 2.6 square miles and is home to 30,000 people. They also have a national team, but, as you might imagine, they are not very good. In fact, only two players on the team are professionals.

So when they played Poland in a Euro 2016 qualifier on Sunday, TV thought it would be good for us to learn what their full-time jobs are.

Gibraltar's starting XI has two policemen, a fireman, an admin clerk, only two pro footballers http://t.co/jmCQPed7it pic.twitter.com/2kU3tYSfem

— MailOnline Sport (@MailSport) September 7, 2014

Of course there would be a policeman in defensive midfield, a fireman in goal and a shipping agent at striker.

Unsurprisingly, Poland won 7-0. Good effort, shipping agent, electrician, storeman, two policeman, clerk, customs agent, crewe director and fireman.

droomoog - Music production visualized with bunnies.

kyerea:

kyerea:

Grim Winter Redux - Shields of Skyrim

This got a lot of attention really fast. lol. Still surprises me.

Mitt Romney: I Would Have Done A Better Job Than Obama Huffington Post WASHINGTON (AP) — Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney says there is no question in his mind that he would have been more effective in the White House than President Barack Obama. But he reiterates he has no plans to run again. My time ... and more »

The Cowboys got off to an awful start against the 49ers, and never recovered. Get ready to hear a lot questions about Tony Romo, Jason Garrett and the future of the team.

Demarco Murray fumbled on the third play of Sunday's game against the San Francisco 49ers, and the ball was scooped up by Chris Culliver for a 35-yard touchdown return. From there, it was only downhill for the Dallas Cowboys. Tony Romo threw three interceptions in the first half, and the 49ers went on to cruise to a 28-17 win.

Romo will bear the brunt of criticism against Dallas in the coming days. He finished 23-for-36 passing for 281 yards, but committed three turnovers that led to 14 points for the 49ers. Fingers should also be pointed at an injury-decimated defense, however. The 49ers' first-team offense did not score a touchdown in four preseason games, but they found the end zone three times Sunday. San Francisco racked up 316 total yards to 382 for Dallas, but the Niners made the most of their opportunities.

Colin Kaepernick made up for his iffy preseason with a strong outing. He went 16-for-23 for 201 yards and two touchdowns. The 49ers should feature a strong running game yet again. Frank Gore once against keyed the ground game, but rookie Carlos Hyde provided the highlights. In particular, Hyde look impressive bulling his way to the end-zone on a 4-yard carry in the first half. He finished with 50 yards on seven carries.

The second half of the game was quiet. The 49ers didn't score any more points, and the Cowboys didn't commit any more turnovers. The point was proven in the first half, anyway. Both teams had serious questions entering the regular season, but at a glance it appears the 49ers were just playing possum.

Three things:

1) What is wrong with Tony Romo? The Cowboys quarterback has been the butt of jokes in the past for his late-game failures. On Sunday, he struggled from snap No. 1. He started the game 10-for-14 passing but, three of those "incompletions" were actually picks. He repeatedly made bad decisions. One of his picks hung out Dez Bryant, forcing the wideout to take a nasty hit to the middle of his back.

We know Romo is coming off of back surgery, though it's unclear how much it's affecting him. He looked all right during the preseason, albeit in very limited action. It could be that Romo just had a bad day, and that he'll be his normal productive (if inopportunistic) self again going forward. He settled down in the second half, so perhaps that's a sign that he will be fine. The Cowboys better hope so.

2) Preseason football is useless, example No. 4,034,523: The 49ers' offense was held without a touchdown on every one of its Kaepernick-led offensive drives during the preseason. On Sunday, the unit scored touchdowns on two of its first three full offensive possessions (ignoring a one-play, 2-yard drive after a Romo pick), including its opening possession. A loaded receiving corps lived up to its billing, and Hyde appears to be (finally) the running back to carry the torch from Gore.

The defense was supposed to be a wreck without Aldon Smith NaVorro Bowman and Glenn Dorsey, but the unit was able to hold the Cowboys in check while forcing four turnovers.

We spent the offseason fretting about the 49ers on both sides of the ball. Through one game, those worries appear to have been misplaced.

3) At least the Cowboys have Demarco Murray. The Cowboys running back was easily the team's brightest spot Sunday. It's unfortunate that a big deficit likely limited his touches, but he still earned a healthy 22 carries for 118 yards and a touchdown, adding three receptions for 25 yards. He flashed, speed, quickness, power and no ill effects from his extant injury history.

That injury history is still worrisome. Murray is 100 percent for now, however, and he looks outstanding.

foxysmoulder:

i hope everyone realizes that Drax literally drunk dialed Ronan and almost got them all killed

corvidae30:

- Vulcan, Alberta -

  Vulcan is just about an hour south of Calgary  The town was named in 1915 after the roman god of fire, and the original streets were named after various roman deities. Somewhere along the way, somebody in the community made the Star Trek connection, and the local tourism board ran with it, in a big way. 

  Aside from the Trek themed tourism information building, the street signs are all Trek themed, the county admin building has trek themed signage, there is a Trek museum, and murals depicting Star Trek characters all over town. There is an annual Star Trek convention called Spock Days.

jessicalprice:

tbridge:

atomicovermind:

NOTE: This was originally posted by Greg Costikyan over at Gamesutra. It was taken down for excessive profanity. All I haveto say is “fuck that.” This needs to be read. 

Gamersgate: STFU by Greg Costikyan

"As a male voice in the game industry," writes my daughter Vicky, "you should speak out about this."

Ouch.

I wanted to hold my tongue. Because when I let loose, it usually does me no favors. But she’s right.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

What do you think you’re defending? An industry in which greed-head executives make brain-dead games on a yearly basis that show little to no innovation from one title to the next? You fucking -want- Madden? And the next Call of Duty game, same as the last but with new content from hundreds of exploited drones working hours that destroy relationships because the suits think that’s what they want?

For decades, we had a market that catered to Maxim-reading horny boy-men who bought games by developers who spent man-years on developing better physics to make tits bounce in the next beach volleyball title. For decades, we had shameless manager jackasses who thought the best way to market their titles was to hire high-breasted bimbos to pose and giggle at their booths at E3.

For decades, we had the best creative minds of our industry SHUT DOWN whenever they proposed the slightest design innovation, because increasing budgets meant all design risk must be minimized.

For decades, we had no way for people who wanted to do anything creative be able to find any path to market.

Finally, finally, and thank god, we have a viable path of market for indies, and a way for people who want to express themselves through games that will never sell in the millions to find a market. And you find that a PROBLEM?

What kind of blinkered idiots you are?

And of course, indies do whatever the fuck they can to get noticed, because they don’t have MILLIONS OF MARKETING DOLLARS TO SPEND. What the fuck would you expect?

Let me explain something do you. Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision: Mutimillionare. Anna Anthrophy? Stroppy indie developer who probably has problems paying her rent. Who has the power here? What the fuck are you talking about?

There’s some kind of conspiracy by the in-group to promote indie games at the expense of “real” games? What the fuck are you talking about? Who cares who Zoe Quinn fucked, or didn’t fuck? It’s none of your fucking business, unless you were one of the people involved, and most of you would give your left kidney to fuck her, if you had any brains. You are unlikely ever to touch anyone with an iota of her talent or intelligence.

And what does that even mean? Have you suddenly noticed that the game industry is undergoing weird changes as a result of this supposed conspiracy? The next Call of Duty being cancelled in favor of triple-A treatment of the next Anna Anthropy design?

Do people who actually care about whether games can be more than degraded violence porn for young men sometimes get together and talk about games that actually matter? And do they sometimes write about such games?

You’re fucking right they do! And you should be fucking grateful that someday a more mature and interesting landscape of videogames may emerge from that! That’s not what we call “conspiracy;” that’s what we call “gamers who care about games.”

And what is it with this mysoginistic bullshit?

I want to tell you some stories.

1. The studio head who invited me -and a female employee- to join them at a strip club at a conference, expecting we would all enjoy this as a ‘fun time.’

2. The party given by an industry marketing firm where I and Dan Scherlis were approached by a scantily clad woman who was evidently hired to show their clients a good time (not necessarily including actual fornication) and had to explain that we were both involved with people we cared about, and actually were having a perfectly enjoyable time talking to each other.
 
3. The -very- gay friend of mine who was hired by another firm and started sweating when I approached their booth at a conference, in fear that I would reveal his sexual orientation to his new boss.

4. My friend, Dan Bunten, a seminal figure in early PC gaming, who decided he was a woman, and after extensive surgery, became Danielle Bunten Berry. “Shabbily treated” wouldn’t even begin to describe it.

I have no idea why gender and such is even an issue in this conversation. Women have always been a minority in the games industry, to its loss; but they have never been entirely missing. Roberta Williams created the Sierra adventures. Brenda Garno, later Brathwaite, later Romero, was one of the key talents behind the Wizardry series.

If you look at recent IGDA surveys, 80+% of all jobs in the industry are held by men. This is a problem, particularly as industry surveys say that a majority of gamers are women. To be sure, they’re playing Candy Crush and not Call of Duty, and maybe that doesn’t qualify as a “real game” to you, but if so, fuck off. Games are games, games are good, and it’s great that more people are playing them. Stop masturbating with your console controller and get a life.

Anita Sirkeesian has told some pretty obvious truths about the treatment of women in games; controversial ones, and others are free to debate them, but “debate” doesn’t normally involve threats to rape or kill.

You can like, or not like, Zoe Quinn’s work; tastes vary. But her sex life is not, and never has been, any of your fucking business.

Leigh Alexander is one of the most interesting journalists working in games.

This is bullshit, you are assholes, and shut the fuck up.

Deal with the fact that not all games are, or will be in the future, the same corporate crap that you apparently love so much. And understand that the money-grubbing entities who dole out this crap will continue to feed your fix, because it’s a far larger market than is reached by the indie people, whom you despise and spit on, can possibly ever hope to reach.

You’re attacking people who have problems making their rent, apparently in defense of people who make millions off your fanboy lusts; and somehow feel threatened by people who love games — as I supposed you do — but love games that are a little different.

You are assholes.

Worse, you are poor examples of men. Men, good men, defend women. They do not attack them.

To which end: To defend the honor of Anita Sirkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or yes, Anna Anthropy, I will be willing to meet any of you, on horse or afoot, with sword or pistol, at a time and place of your choosing.

It is time this stopped.

EDIT: Original cached post here, courtesy of James Wallis. 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fgamasutra.com%2Fblogs%2FGregCostikyan%2F20140907%2F225017%2FGamersgate_STFU.php

In which Greg Costikyan becomes my hero.

Yup.