@Shinobishyguy said:

You hear that?

Thats the sound of someone shooting their career in the foot

In the context of modern feminism I don't think that's supposed to be an inflammatory thing to say. As far as I know, modern feminism believes in a concept called the 'patriarchy' which describes an overarching societal influence that assigns gender roles of dominance and leadership to men and more submissive gender roles to women. Though the focus is usually on women, this idea is sometimes applied in defence of men by criticising the male gender roles and the sometimes unrealistic standards these roles expect men to adhere to (in this case the toxic masculinity). That is to say, I don't think that her tweet is supposed to be an attack on men, rather than on the gender roles that feminism identifies and opposes. From her point of view she may very well have believed she was sticking up for men.

Still, there is absolutely no way that anybody who is not already familiar with modern feminism would have known that on reading her tweet without having it explained to them like I just did. It was very short-sighted of her to post that, and though I am not aware of any shooting incidents lately, if one did just happen then that's also incredibly tasteless and exploitative of her.

This is one of the problems that I feel exists with modern feminism, it seems to have become almost like an academic field that you have to undergo significant learning to even understand which makes it very difficult for people to engage with and deliver constructive criticism of it. The bigger problem is that people will be willing to open their minds and undergo a certain extent of education in order to be a part of a movement that is broadly recognised as being for a good cause. However this leaves them vulnerable to being exploited by those with less honourable intentions who may use it as an opportunity to also promote more radical ideas, or to promote themselves as an authority on the matter. Academics certainly aren't always the pure noble people we think they are, it is in their financial interests to be seen as an expert on a certain subject, thus it is certainly in their interests to promote their own theories and research above those of others that hold differing views, even if those differing views may be more rational and justifiable.

From what I've been told a number of troll groups (one being the GNAA who have apparently pulled out now) have been doxxing and threatening people on both sides to stir things up even more. These are the sort of people who go all out to harass people simply because they enjoy the outrage that follows.

Apparently they've been very forthcoming about their involvement too but people have hardly said anything. I would have at least expected the gamergate crowd to draw attention to it so people know gg isn't to blame.

This is pretty much how I feel. I don't feel compelled to actively participate in the movement and some (though not most) of the people involved do strike me as a bit fanatical, at least that's the impression I get from looking at forums about it. But the ridiculously biased way it's being covered by the news is doing nothing to deter me from being sympathetic to the movement. If anything it's proof of what gamergate is accusing them of. I absolutely hate being treated like an idiot and being talked down to by them.

That's interesting, I suppose the only way we can know for sure is by e-mailing mercedes and asking them. That being said if this isn't true but it keeps getting publicity then mercedes will most likely publicly deny it soon enough.

I for one was surprised to hear mercedes-benz were advertising on gawker in the first place. I can't see most gawker readers (or readers of any gaming site for that matter) being mercedes drivers.

That's what it looks like to me as well. I liked that reason.com article, I wouldn't call it a balanced article (ie very clearly pro gamergate) but it does give a far more coherent and accurate idea of what it's about than what most news sources seem to think it's about.

I think the bigger problem is people think that gamergate refers to everything that happened since Eron Gjoni posted his blog, including all of the abusive behaviour, harassment, hacking, etc. Gamergate is only one component of the uproar that usually seems to focus only on the gaming journalism and came into existence after people saw the dubious behaviour of some journalists. Whenever I look at some of the big threads on it I see mostly moderate people and very little abusive or sexist behaviour.

I just don't understand why many news sites insist on slamming it as a hateful sexist movement. Given that these are the sites gg is implicating as being corrupt, they're only encouraging the gamergate people to continue by exhibiting the very behaviour gg have been accusing them of all along. Are they really that blinded by their own self-righteousness or do they think they're fighting a war of attrition?

2007 I think though I probably popped by a couple of times before then.

If you want to be picky, the Palestinians are all semitic people too, so sticking up for them isn't anti-semitic. "Anti-semitic" as a phrase for prejudice against jews is a very outdated phrase (coined in the 1800s) and I don't understand why it's still in use. The only anti-semitic stance you could take on the israeli-palestine conflict is thinking the whole region should be nuked.

As far as your question goes, I think people getting accused of anti-semitism for criticising isreal is something that only happens out of desperation but it's entirely justifiable to criticise israel or anyone else involved in this conflict and not something exclusive to prejudiced people.

That's not true at all. I found this list someone put together that covers instances where the majority or plurality of Scottish seats went to the governing party, including several instances where England as a whole voted differently and Scotland affected the outcome. Even in the 2010 election Scotland affected the outcome. If you remove the Scottish seats there would be 591 MPs, 303 of which would be Conservative, resulting in a conservative majority government instead of the coalition we have now. Not as significant a change as having an entirely different party, but the conservatives would have freedom to pursue a lot more of their own policies if they had a majority and their governance would be different.

I don't live in Scotland but I don't want to see the UK break up, I think it would end badly for as all and there's no reason for it. This independence referendum has led to the fantastic achievement of getting nearly all of Scotland's population interested in politics again, discussing and debating issues and most importantly, turning out to vote. That's what we should be seeing at every election. I'm hoping for a no vote but one close enough that it brings about change, and that the people of Scotland can share their newfound enthusiasm and energy with the rest of us.