Text

shabogangraffiti:

There is no degree of alleged misconduct a person can commit that makes it ethically defensible to threaten them with rape.

End of discussion that should never have been necessary in the fucking first place.

Text

Anonymous said: The Simpsons?

Never something I’ve been a faithful viewer of, but I generally enjoy if.

Photoset

viro-blizzard:

The Web Planet, season 2, 1965

I don’t understand why this TARDIS crew is not considered the iconic one of the Hartnell era. I really don’t.

(via taiey)

Text

sarahlicity:

philsandifer:

To make something of an implicit policy position explicit…

The degree to which I care about any criticism of Zoe Quinn that was first substantially raised after the harassment and death threats came up is basically nil.

The problem is this: any criticism of Quinn made right now (late August 2014) is contributing to a larger body of criticism that is rife with misogyny. And just disclaiming “she doesn’t deserve harassment and abuse” before laying into someone doesn’t inoculate you from that. If you’re criticizing Zoe Quinn, you’re saying things that are going to be used as justification by horrible people doing awful shit.

In other words, whatever valid points might exist about the practices of video game journalism, the entire Zoe Quinn issue has become a shitstorm of misogyny that taints everyone involved.

And I mean this on a very basic, factual level. I don’t have time in my life to carefully evaluate every claim and allegation made about Quinn, but when the body includes lavish conspiracy theories, angry complaints about “social justice warriors,” harassment and threats, and a mysterious willingness to believe everything a jilted ex says when they decide to inappropriately air dirty laundry in public, my confidence that people are telling the truth when they’re not being self-evidently monstrous excuses for human beings is pretty low.

Which is to say that maybe Quinn did sabotage some feminist games thing or misbehave in some other way. But the people saying she did include far too many people who are far too odious to believe.

And if you want this reduced to a far simpler demonstration…

Why is it that nobody at any of the AAA gaming companies has ever once been the subject of a massive Internet harassment campaign despite those companies engaging in shitty and corrupt practices with games journalism based heavily on threatening to withhold advance access to future games unless current games get suitably rapturous press?

Why are gaming sites creating codes of conduct about disclosing contributions to Kickstarter and Patreon, but not engaging in full transparency about any and all gifts and promotional items sent by major studios? 

Why do companies that release software that they know to be broken and sell it to people for exorbitant prices not have dozens of lengthy screeds on YouTube about how horrible they are?

And given this, how is anybody expected to seriously believe that the objections to Zoe Quinn have anything whatsoever to do with corrupt practices in gaming journalism? 

tl;dr: If you want your issues to be taken seriously, act like a fucking serious person and don’t associate with people who send death and rape threats. 

I recall Jennifer Hepler at BioWare was a result of a massive Internet harassment campaign. But not because of games journalism, but because she put lesbians in Dragon Age 2, or something like that.

Yeah, it’s almost like there’s a common factor among all the people being harassed by a segment of the video game community. 

Link

captainjingles:

philsandifer:

To make something of an implicit policy position explicit…

The degree to which I care about any criticism of Zoe Quinn that was first substantially raised after the harassment and death threats came up is basically nil.

The problem is this: any criticism of Quinn made right now (late August…

"Blah blah blah please ignore facts because of politics."

Not at all, though that’s a quality straw man you’ve built. 

More accurately, “in an issue full of claims and counterclaims, most of which are backed by little more than the supposed authority of whoever is making them, I’m going to join the side with fewer rape threats.”

Text

To make something of an implicit policy position explicit…

The degree to which I care about any criticism of Zoe Quinn that was first substantially raised after the harassment and death threats came up is basically nil.

The problem is this: any criticism of Quinn made right now (late August 2014) is contributing to a larger body of criticism that is rife with misogyny. And just disclaiming “she doesn’t deserve harassment and abuse” before laying into someone doesn’t inoculate you from that. If you’re criticizing Zoe Quinn, you’re saying things that are going to be used as justification by horrible people doing awful shit.

In other words, whatever valid points might exist about the practices of video game journalism, the entire Zoe Quinn issue has become a shitstorm of misogyny that taints everyone involved.

And I mean this on a very basic, factual level. I don’t have time in my life to carefully evaluate every claim and allegation made about Quinn, but when the body includes lavish conspiracy theories, angry complaints about “social justice warriors,” harassment and threats, and a mysterious willingness to believe everything a jilted ex says when they decide to inappropriately air dirty laundry in public, my confidence that people are telling the truth when they’re not being self-evidently monstrous excuses for human beings is pretty low.

Which is to say that maybe Quinn did sabotage some feminist games thing or misbehave in some other way. But the people saying she did include far too many people who are far too odious to believe.

And if you want this reduced to a far simpler demonstration…

Why is it that nobody at any of the AAA gaming companies has ever once been the subject of a massive Internet harassment campaign despite those companies engaging in shitty and corrupt practices with games journalism based heavily on threatening to withhold advance access to future games unless current games get suitably rapturous press?

Why are gaming sites creating codes of conduct about disclosing contributions to Kickstarter and Patreon, but not engaging in full transparency about any and all gifts and promotional items sent by major studios? 

Why do companies that release software that they know to be broken and sell it to people for exorbitant prices not have dozens of lengthy screeds on YouTube about how horrible they are?

And given this, how is anybody expected to seriously believe that the objections to Zoe Quinn have anything whatsoever to do with corrupt practices in gaming journalism? 

tl;dr: If you want your issues to be taken seriously, act like a fucking serious person and don’t associate with people who send death and rape threats. 

Text

Anonymous said: Are you going to cover any more old comics in LWIA like you did with Pogo? I'm assuming you'll cover Little Nemo when you get to Sandman, but beyond that?

No specific and likely instances spring to mind, but if there’s an obvious connection, yeah.

Will almost certainly do the work of Chuck Jones, though that’s animation, not comics. 

Text

Anonymous said: Just out of curiosity, how does what Adam Baldwin did render Firefly unwatchable? He's just one actor from a show with many actors.

Because of the overpowering desire to vomit when I see him. 

Text

zeropotential said: Dropping a reminder about that "Doctor as ultimate autocratic liberal" quote if that's okay with you :O

Yes! Thank you. Will try to get to it in about an hour. Otherwise, popping out for a wedding today, and it’s entirely possible I’ll need another reminder. But yes. Thank you. 

Text

The odds that I’ll take anything you say seriously if the first page of your Tumblr is entirely devoted to criticizing Zoe Quinn are basically zero.