archive.isPosted Feb 23, 2016, 4:42 AM UTC
It's almost refreshing to hear abut right-wings being partisan asshats, like good'old times again.
This is KotakuInAction buying into a hit piece from a partisan site, the same thing people here constantly criticize others for doing.
here's what the same site said of Gamergate.
"Yes, its focal point was in the U.S., but the threats and harassment directed at critics of misogynistic video games was just plain ugly."
http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/10-signs-canada-can-do-more-women-montreal-massacre-anniversary
The article in question that led to Coren's dismissal: http://archive.is/wV0u7
People should read the article, though to fill some stuff in as a person living in the SWON.
There's people ranging from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative that are against this new sex-ed plan. They get twitchy over it because the person who wrote it is about to plead guilty to actively engaging in CP related stuff(possession, manufacturing, and counseling others to engage is sexual assault against children) . He was also involved in the creation of the TDSB's(Toronto District School Board) program, which included topics about transgender(for grade 1/2). Fisting for grades 3-4, and veggie-sex for grades 4-5. That material was removed after a similar outcry against the TDSB. That leads people to question the material itself, and wonder what other gems are going to be hidden. They're also twitchy over the presented homosexual material because the government hasn't been forthcoming.
So it in the end leads people to think that either the person who wrote it is trying to push an agenda, or the government is giving tact approval by continuing to push it or other material that he may have included. And it doesn't help either, that the provincial government and many of the supporters from within Toronto, look at the rest of the province as "backwards rednecks." For people in the US, it would be like San Francisco making all the choices for the state of California...then when people complain, they laugh and say "fuck you."
They get twitchy over it because the person who wrote it is about to plead guilty to actively engaging in CP related stuff(possession, manufacturing, and counseling others to engage is sexual assault against children) . He was also involved in the creation of the TDSB's(Toronto District School Board) program, which included topics about transgender(for grade 1/2). Fisting for grades 3-4, and veggie-sex for grades 4-5. That material was removed after a similar outcry against the TDSB.
I don't think you need to be ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative to be against this shit.
Wait, they were suppose to be teaching fisting? WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO TEACH THAT?
[deleted]
I don't think kids that young need to be taught about sexuality so in-depth. For things like fisting...that can just be ignored until they're ready to start having sex, and no, I don't think that is like, at age fucking twelve or whatever. Pun intended.
For things like transgender, and gender dysphoria...I just don't think kids that young are equipped with the cognitive faculties necessary to think clearly about those issues. It would sound so arbitrary to them that they likely wouldn't even grasp what was going on, at least not at that age. If a child is showing symptoms, they can be taken to a doctor, and the schools should only be getting involved if there are risks of abuse from the home and family of the child, due to those symptoms.
The amount of misinformation about the Ontario sex ed curriculum is straight up ridiculous. Here is the link for the grade by grade overviews:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health.html#display
As a quick example, gender identity and expression is at grade 8. That's 12-13 year olds. It's later than it should be, if anything.
You mean it's what they're reporting it as. The stuff that came out of the TDSB though? Those were the grades that they wanted to give talks on. Remember, in Ontario individual boards of education can determine what's best for their area. The curriculum layout is only a guideline to ensure that they know xyz or can pass mandatory testing.
K help me out a sec, I'm confused.
He was also involved in the creation of the TDSB's(Toronto District School Board) program, which included topics about transgender(for grade 1/2). Fisting for grades 3-4, and veggie-sex for grades 4-5. That material was removed after a similar outcry against the TDSB.
Is this in reference to the unimplemented 2010 curriculum that the pedo was definitely involved with, or the 2015 curriculum?
Just want to make sure I've got my timelines correct before I go hunting for government documents with descriptions of fisting in them. ;)
That'd be the 2010 one, which was partially implemented. If you're looking for info on it, BlazingCatFur also did a few articles on it that were also published(aka they skimmed content) by National Post, City TV and the Globe and Mail.
Gonna need some sources on that stuff. From the news of these protests I've really only seen religious immigrants who have been protesting and Christian soccer moms.
Sure, travel to any town you want and go talk to the parents. I live in a area that's a 3-10 minute walking distance from a grade school, middle school and high school. The news likes to parrot the "it's only the religious talking about it...or complaining about it." Because it fits the narrative, I know two people I trust that were approached by CKCO, CFPL and the London Free Press about their opinions on it and that never appeared. Feeling was "they were the wrong type of people not supporting it..." aka they were liberal voters and part of a nuclear family.
They get twitchy over it because the person who wrote it is about to plead guilty to actively engaging in CP related stuff
One of dozens of people who were part of writing it, and he was removed long before it was finished.
which included topics about transgender(for grade 1/2).
Teaching them that those people exist, yes.
Fisting for grades 3-4, and veggie-sex for grades 4-5.
Nope. not true.
So it in the end leads people to think that either the person who wrote it is trying to push an agenda
The Ontario sex ed curriculum is still more conservative than almost every other province's curriculum. The issue has been co-opted by far right religious fanatics that spread lies like "they make kids masturbate in class."
The issue has been co-opted by far right religious fanatics that spread lies like "they make kids masturbate in class."
This whole Ontario sex-ed thing has basically been the Canadian version of "PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLS BABY PARTS!!!!11!!1!!1". It's just a massive series of half-truths and outright lies, willfully misinterpreted by extremists.
The sex-ed plan is not perfect, but Ontario really needs to get with the times: even just 10 years ago, my friends from that province were uneducated as fuck, and apparently the problem is actually getting worse.
I can't understand why you guys are getting downvoted here, we must have some busy right wing low-information low-effort mofos running around.
"PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLS BABY PARTS!!!!11!!1!!1"
Don't they? Not attacking, just genuinely curious.
One of dozens of people who were part of writing it, and he was removed long before it was finished.
And yet the information he wrote is still in there.
Teaching them that those people exist, yes.
Except when the kids don't understand sexual identity, and it's not even on their radar.
Nope. not true.
True. It was scrubbed by the TDSB after public outrage.
The Ontario sex ed curriculum is still more conservative than almost every other province's curriculum. The issue has been co-opted by far right religious fanatics that spread lies like "they make kids masturbate in class."
Haven't heard that one. Though I have heard the "and you can go to this website to learn about xyz things." Of course it included stuff like BDSM, again that was under the TDSB and was targeted at grade 6 or 7 students.
Question- if I write for the Daily Stormer and I put out an article that says "hey, maybe Jews aren't all that bad and the holocaust wasn't a great idea," is it really Andrew Anglins' fault for firing me? Or in a less hyperbolic sense: if I write for a gaming outlet and start shit-talking gamers, whose fault would it be if I got canned?
if I write for a gaming outlet and start shit-talking gamers, whose fault would it be if I got canned?
The gamers, of course. Haven't you been paying attention? :)
Or in a less hyperbolic sense: if I write for a gaming outlet and start shit-talking gamers, whose fault would it be if I got canned?
This is a very relevant comparison imo. Roger Ebert was still respected when he went against gaming, but no one would let him write for IGN (which would be a step down for him, but the point still stands).
I wouldn't really complain if The Mary Sue fired a guy who had Conservative values. It's expected of pundits.
Hmmm. Does this mean that I can also complain when an extremely left wing medium fires someone for being conservative in any fashion?
Or is this one of those double standards?
From the article: http://archive.is/wV0u7
I have never understood why so many social conservatives are so insecure about other people’s sexuality;
A final note, if I may, as an orthodox and Catholic Christian. If conservative Christians became as angry and active about poverty, injustice, unjust war and other such issues as they do about sex and sexuality, not only would the world be a better place, but the standing of conservative Christians would be far higher. Now I am off to see if Lawrence Hiller is still around and if he can tell me how to block nasty emails. How times change.
I can understand why readers would get angry, these lines are uncalled for. If you don't get it, remember the "gamers are over" articles posted on gaming websites. It ruins an otherwise well written column.
I can understand why readers would get angry, these lines are uncalled for.
Were they? As a former Christian, a huge part of the reason I left that crap behind is because I find they are too focused on finding sin in the world and not focused enough on actually doing "God's work" (aka constructive, helpful things). Example: when my family brought a stranger into our home and helped him get back on his feet, my Christian girlfriend and her family were shocked: "Why would you do something like that?" Because that is literally what Jesus would do. Does a Christian need a better answer? Apparently I did, because they found it unacceptable and she thought I was crazy.
I think his comments were completely appropriate. Other people's "sins" are not our problem, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. But letting our fellow man suffer when we could do more? That's wrong, and this hypocrisy absolutely does hurt the image of Christians everywhere.
The whole statement is a fallacy, it's like going to an animal shelter for dogs and slamming them for not housing cats. People view the world differently, that doesn't make people monsters. The whole comment about them being insecure was also uncalled for.
All he is implying is that the perception of Christians from the outside is a bad one, and the reason for that is because they seem to be getting so caught up in everyone else's business. He is attacking authoritarian thinking inside of his own demographic. That kind of criticism should always be welcome.
In my opinion he could have written it better, when he already called them insecure the latter is taken a lot more negative. I think the firering him was wrong, they should have talked to him instead.
Example: when my family brought a stranger into our home and helped him get back on his feet, my Christian girlfriend and her family were shocked: "Why would you do something like that?" Because that is literally what Jesus would do. Does a Christian need a better answer? Apparently I did, because they found it unacceptable and she thought I was crazy.
The Bible directly addresses this, as you probably know.
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' (Matthew 25)
Christians are called to personally help others in need. What rankles about the final paragraph of the article is the implication that Christians need to give their support to systematic, mass-mobilized attempts to "rid the world of poverty" and opposing Iraq BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED. First of all, Jesus already said that the poor will always be with us in the very next chapter (Matthew 26), which logically suggests that utopian movements will always do more harm than good. Second, there is no Christian imperative to proclaim one side or the other of a political controversy to be righteous, and for pretty good reasons. But Coren suggests that there's a direct line from Christian doctrine to both of those things.
As for "injustice," well, this whole sub is about how feel-good movements against "injustice" can so easily be co-opted by malignant narcissists and sociopaths, so we can all see how giving the movement literally divine approval would be insane.
He was fired for attacking their readers
You know, kind of like leigh alexander
The other point, and it’s a vital one, is that the teachers who will have to deliver the thing to their classes spend much of their time with their students and the notion that they would be willing to harm or pervert them is as insulting as it is absurd. Most teachers wish that parents were more, not less, involved.
Sounds really offensive.
"Most" my ass. Education is not the most...iq restrictive field.
You must have had teachers that obviously would have been injured by actual parental involvement. A teacher that thought water naturally flowed South, had you do word searches he had one of the students copy for him, or expelled a student for rasing his hand to ask a question; with scissors in them while she was ten feet away because he was black etc etc. I'd run out of Reddit before I ran out of anecdotes
I'm not interested in digging into this but I will say as long as there is no dishonesty then I have no beef with it, that ending though makes me think there is 3rd party rumor mills mucking the waters up, and the email was shared by Levant apparently so he's being rather transparent about it and he's not obligated to publish contrary viewpoints, its just nice for the rest of us if he does.
Overall I'm looking at this and thinking "if only games media was this transparent and honest", its not exactly a solid display of "ideological extremism", its just a business decision to keep his brand consistent.
We know, we just talk about the left more because they are the major problems within the games media right now.
True enough but my motivation for posting this is to hopefully prevent some people from making the mistake I did until Gamergate opened my eyes: believing the one side of the spectrum wasn't capable of the batshit insanity that was going on when the far end of the opposite part of the spectrum when they were the most dominant voice in the room.
Part of the reason we have all this SJW nonsense on our hands is because the far-right drove people to the left 15 years ago and now I see over and over people mention how SJWs are causing them to lean more to the right. That's fine, left or right, but we need to be wary of the extremes, regardless of what side of the fence we sit.
I don't see 'far-right journalists' with agendas infesting our media as a problem at the moment.
Part of the reason we have all this SJW nonsense on our hands is because the far-right drove people to the left 15 years ago
I'm not sure where this contention comes from but I'm not sure of the veracity of it, or how it's helpful to our current problems. Yeah, ideological extremism is a serious matter, but it's obvious that it's only coming from one side. Thanks for the heads-up to be wary of extremism though. Noted.
I don't see 'far-right journalists' with agendas infesting our media as a problem at the moment.
Yeah, see, those are the critical three words: at the moment. If GamerGate succeeds at everything we aspire to - breaking the backs of the dishonest far-left clique that has a stranglehold on games media right now - we will then have to spend the rest of our lives pushing against the pendulum's swing in the other direction. I've been saying since the start of GG that ten years ago we were fighting Jack Thompson, Christian fundamentalists and the (massive airquotes) "moderate" "conservatives" who kowtowed to them for votes. If we win against the left wing today, in ten years we'll be fighting the right wing again.
Some of our enemies were allies ten years ago. Ten years hence, some of our allies will be enemies.
I've been saying since the start of GG that ten years ago we were fighting Jack Thompson, Christian fundamentalists and the (massive airquotes) "moderate" "conservatives" who kowtowed to them for votes.
That was never the issue, there will always be "outsiders" that see gaming in a bad light - the issue is that the very same people who defended us 10 years ago, who should know better, who have been in this industry for many years - those are the ones that become a real problem, because they have more credibility than some crazy pastor saying "Pokemon is the devil!"
An attack by insiders from within our "culture", so to speak, is much more dangerous.
I don't think religion will ever again achieve the cultural dominance it once had, and certainly not the cultural dominance certain parts of feminism currently have. It doesn't "infiltrate" the way SJWs do, not to mention many more millions of people are gaming nowadays, its no longer a niche or an "obscure" hobby that people don't know that much about - "Pokemon is the work of Satan" would never fly these days.
Yeah, ideological extremism is a serious matter, but it's obvious that it's only coming from one side.
We seem to be stuck on a never-ending pendulum where 10-15 years ago it was mostly coming from the far-right, today it's the far-left and 10-15 years from now it'll be the far-right and so on ad infinitum. I know I'm speaking to the choir in this sub about this but I believe one way we as a society can combat this is if more people understand this isn't a right vs left issue.
We seem to be stuck on a never-ending pendulum
This is the messy, genius of how US politics works vis-a-vis the "mainstream" aka the much maligned, "normies".
It's simple. There are many more average people. Thus, them being "average". That means every oscillation is always regressing back to the mean. During the momentum that builds up as the regression towards the mean occurs away from some extreme (which is not always as simple as a left-right pole), the next generation of extremists are born who will propel the next oscillation's overcorrection away from the mean. We tend to group these oscillations into convenient labels, like "generations" or some other convenient platonification.
A lot of people mistake this for the "golden mean fallacy". It is something entirely different.
It's not that large parts of the right wing media are not a problem, it's more that the areas it's a problem in aren't relevant to KiA. :)
The far right didn't drive people anywhere. The left followed each other over the cliff because they are all easily emotionally manipulated sheep.
Don't think for one moment that I'm only gunning for the radical left, after this problem gets solved one way or the other cannons are swinging straight back to the radical right.
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
You catch where he said "parties?" The organizations and labels themselves take on lives of their own, people getting swallowed up in the collective identity of "being" a Democrat or a Republican (if you're in America) but when people ground their identity in themselves instead of their political affiliation, you have a person who is likely to be a lot more rational.
So what's the problem here? Rebel is the remains of the Sun which is basically Canada's FOX News I believe it would hardly be a surprise if someone at FOX news got fired for being too left wing. The viewers know what they're getting going in. At worst you get a less nuanced view from the Rebel.
[deleted]
I kind of agree with this guy. If you went to a food vendor, and one of the waitstaff was doing things like throwing peoples' orders at them and saying "fuck every douchebag who eats here," that dummy would be fired on the spot, likely to much cheering from the patrons of the establishment.
guy. If you went to a food vendor, and one of the waitstaff was doing things like throwing peoples' orders at them and saying "fuck every douchebag who eats here,"
hahaha
Which part of this article is insulting and attacking his readers?
Agreed. I read that article when it was first published and I thought it was pretty preachy and condescending.
This came out when the Ontario government was trying to implement changes that a lot of parents were unhappy with and didn't want implemented.
The timing of the article is important as the environment it was released in was pretty contentious; that meant that this article was a blatant attack against a group of people and their values for not being "correct".
As a Canadian who has been having to listen to the hypocritical douchebag Ezra Levant for years, this doesn't surprise me. He's a partisan hack, a shit reporter and is a huge fan of crying victim every time he doesn't get his way.
Micheal Coren is a hardcore Christian fundamentalist and everything he writes is drawn from that poisoned well. He's wrote countless articles attacking the LGBT community and he's a Christian dominionist in moderate's clothing. In short; he's a bigoted piece of shit and reason #3 I haven't bought a copy of a SUN newspaper in over a decade. The guy even wrote an article about how it would be a good idea to nuke Tehran, and then had to scribble out an apology after the Arab Summer showed him that the Iranian people aren't happy with their government either.
But he can write what he wants. The best way to prove that his ideas are stupid are let him float them out into the air like a big ol' fart and then dissipate them with facts and reason.
Ezra Levant's a giant floating turd that spreads shit on everything he touches as well.
We should not live in a world where people can be fired for their opinions.
Thanks for the "friendly reminder" about an article posted today. Good lookin out...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why on earth should an avowed right-wing organization, which has openly declared itself to be gearing up to fight the NDP and other lefties in Canada, hire people who aren't on board with their political mission?
This article is nothing but a lame tu toque. SJWs in the gaming press hide their intentions and mock you when you reveal them. Big difference between the two cases.
I've got no issue with openly radical blogs, net mags, radio stations, e.g. Pacifica, etc. I read and listen to them. And, I'm certainly not going to call for them to be non-partisan. Free speech mutherfuckers.
Archive links for this discussion:
I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.
For the sake of fairness, The Rebel is a right-wing publication. They would not be true to their readers to allow a journalist to push a liberal narrative.
On the other hand, games journalists (and mainstream news outfits) claim to be impartial. They're asking for our trust, you read our material and we will present to you objective, balanced truth for your consideration. Failing to live up to this contract harms everyone.
I think that is the real cut-off. Do you claim to be impartial or are you honest bout your intentions. I wouldn't be nearly as pissed with the game journos if they were just upfront and honest about their motive. I couldn't hate Leigh Alexander, she was open about what she was.
Exactly what I wanted to say. I'm not going to say I don't like Milo. I think he is funny and engaging. Has he been involved in stuff that bordered pretty shady? Yeah, but he was honest about it from the word go he admitted he liked to mock gamers as they were easy targets. So just don't piss on me and tell me it's rain. Just say you're gonna try to give me a golden shower so I can at least try to run. I will be far less angry at least given a chance to escape the "rain".
Edit: Autocorrect corrections.
Some of the time. Whenever she was dealing with someone that didn't know her, she was looking to con them, and there is the separate-but-related issue of her trying to destroy peoples' careers just because she doesn't like them.
Politics should not dictate reportage.
End of story.
I personally find it more interesting when a publication has a variety of voices, giving different perspectives on the same issue.
Yaknow, still be broadly right or left-wing, whatever they are, but while acknowledging that there are differences of opinion within the right and left.
This probably isn't the best example, but it's one that comes to mind... Remember when Milo and Allum Bokhari both wrote articles about the same thing (can't remember exactly - something about govt. interference in are internets) on the same day for BB and then put it to the reader 'who do you think is right'?
For outlets that are expressly partisan or political in nature, that's fine. Hell, I don't mind if those outlets do in fact want to keep dissenting voices out of their platform. I just won't give them any patronage, and will stick with the outlets that report the dry-and-boring-as-fuck facts.
In all fairness most magazines and TV "news" outlets are virtual op/ed columns. The closest you get to raw news is Reuters or AP, everyone else just spins those stories to fit their audiences sensibilities.
An editorial isn't a story though. It is an opinion. Now if it was a story that had flat out lies in it you can just use the excuse the Daily Show trotted out each time they were caught lying and called it satire.
The problem is when a site like TheRebel is mistaken for some kind of news organization, Its a purely ideological machine with ideological goals, if it happinds to bring some interesting stories then that is merely a by-product of pushing/reinforcing a fixed narrative, its essentially a propaganda outlet.
If people know this its not a problem, there are plenty of sites that are like that to varying degree both on the left and right, but Ezra is too slippery and fake for me to stomach personally, and he lacks the "personal magnetism" that someone like Andrew Breitbart had.
As someone that leans libertarian/conservative, I could say that about a lot of media outlets that most people would say are "legitimate" news media. Every news outlet pushes some sort of agenda. That's something I thought we had all learned at this point. I don't think The Rebel or Breitbart or even MSNBC should be faulted for their bias so long as they're up front about it. I think it actually puts them a step above outlets who have an obvious bias but do everything they can to deny it.
Naw, dude: TheRebel is the Canukistani version of FOX news. Ezra's the kind of guy who dreams of sucking Ann Coulter's dick in the hopes it will get him onto the American airwaves.
At least we got something that is the opposite of what the CBC and co pushes now. And at least they are honest about what they are pushing instead of the CBC, which claims to be impartial, yet blatantly push their agenda.
They could have handled it like they did on Breitbart when Milo came out attacking encryption and Allum posted an article disagreeing with him.