Kiva Bay’s Feminist Deck

Very quick one.

Anyone remember the Feminist Deck/ It was a Kickstarter by a self-promoting talent-poor artist called Kiva Bay, who wanted to pander to SJWs for money to draw some playing cards of her favourite Feminists?

I do. She was approaching the stage where she was going to reach her target. I saw all the usual candidates fawning all over her. It was pretty distasteful. I decided to give them a little poke in the eye.

She at that stage was promoting that she was going to give $150 payment to the people she was drawing pictures of on her cards and most of them were refusing, to which she replied that she would give the money to charity.

I happened to notice the rules on it said:

“Projects can’t fundraise for charity, offer financial incentives, or involve prohibited items.

We’re all in favor of charity and investment, but they’re not permitted on Kickstarter. Projects can’t promise to donate funds raised to a charity or cause, and they can’t offer financial incentives like equity or repayment. We also can’t allow any of these prohibited things.”

Funny stuff so I wrote about it and reported it to Kickstarter. She freaked out. She removed that stipulation.

For me it was no biggie. If NOTHING happened it would have been worth it to try for a reaction. If her Kickstarter Project was removed, that would have been hilarious BUT the next best thing was her being forced to kowtow and go back on her own conditions to do what she was getting paid for. Which is what happened.

Then to spite me, idiot SJWs started giving her more and more money to show me up and that “my plan did not work”. I loved it. She was forced to change things as to my demands and then more people I loathe were wasting their money and throwing money at a stupid project, because of me.

I laughed my arse off.

That was a year ago.

I just found out that she scammed them all. $30 000 GONE!!!

She is naturally like all victim peddlers claiming sickness, harassment, mental illness and whatever she can.

Her supporters? Rather than cave to the rather logical but humiliating conclusion that they were scammed again, are all wishing her well and the brave girl can keep the money .

I am a very happy man. I so hope the SJWs keep throwing good money after bad into unconstructive projects that go nowhere and scam them. I want them to lose all their money at a bare minimum. What do they say about fools and money?

 

 

 

These “very exciting” and infamous Ralph chat logs

So there are leaked logs in Gamergate and everyone is abuzz and losing their shit. Everyone has an opinion. To some it is a chance to sink the toe into Ralph – to settle some score, to some it is a chance to see who is associated or connected to him and hurt them, to others it is something is just good gossip, to others still it is a rallying point. I think most people see it as needless drama and hope it just resolves.

But everyone is talking about them so, Hell, why not?

Someone leaked private chat logs from a group of people including Ralph and from a chat site he set up, and released some of these the day after people from Gamergate chose to defend Sarah Nyberg and get Adsense taken down. 

There is a bit above which may ring a few alarm bells. If not I will explain.

Who: The type of person that would side with Sarah bloody Nyberg to take away Ralph’s livelihood. The type too who would see no problem in releasing privately discussed information.

When: The day after Ralph’s Adsense was taken down? (I think so maybe the day after). Convenient timing.

Okay so what about the records themselves? Were they real? Were they fabricated? Were they complete? Were they out of context? Were they damning?

What: You will no doubt have people enthusiastically tell you like the street gossip that “They are all real. They were verified as real by people that were there”. 

So there you go. They were verified as real by people in the group so THEREFORE they not fake and can be counted on. Right? Not really.

Unfortunately human nature is such that we want nice easy and simple. We want to join the dots and have everything black and white and handed to us neat and tidy, and unfortunately sometimes you just don’t get that.

Firstly, the two people who have said the logs were real. Who were they and what exactly did they say? The first was Guitar Anthony. Dan Mappplethorpe showed him an alleged chat snippet showing Guitar Anthony saying that he thought Dan was not to be trusted. (Words to that effect – but ask Dan, he will gladly present this himself) and Dan’s quoted response back was “It’s true isn’t it?”. So WHAT was true? The log was a true representation of the chat logs or that Dan was untrustworthy or something else? The second was Jennetic Anomaly saying that the chats looked right but the headers were not a part of the chat channel and the chat seems out of context.

So where the Hell does that leave us with “real”? There WAS a chat and the chats presented on initial inspection, by someone who was there, “seemed right”? Bit airy-fairy. Not a lot to hang one’s hat on:

That is like saying, “Is this definitely the man that robbed you?”

“Yeah, I guess so. The guy was about 6 foot average build, black haired and white. So sure, why not? Not like there is likely to be any other guys matching that description”

But let’s be charitable. IF we can presume they were leaked from a private chat log into the public and the log is not complete (more coming soon – why not all together?…I will get there) and verified – as it looks on initial inspection – like the real deal. Then what is that small detail about the headers? The headers were not part of the log.

Here is where, at best case, it gets a little murky and now into areas of grey rather than black and white, and at worse an absolute wash.

The Headers were added, for effect and for easier categorising. If we accept that they were added after the fact, then the LEAST we know is that the Chat logs WERE altered. If you look at the chat logs, you WILL know that they were not the real deal. So we know the chat logs WERE altered. The question is how much?

If you say that this was the ONLY alteration. Okay. Sure. How do you know? You trust the person releasing this is going to not alter the logs….except that they did. You trust them because they dislike Ralph, but doesn’t that raise an antenna at least a little? It is not some impartial third party that is simply releasing documents to a higher power because they are required to but rather someone seeking to do Ralph harm and therefore biased to doing Ralph as much harm as possible? Moreover, they are precisely the same type of people that would defend Sarah Nyberg and who would leak private discussion. You would trust that what they present you would not be tampered with (and especially after KNOWING that they already tampered with the chatlogs adding by headings to an unheaded chatlog.)

Jenn notes that they were taking things out of context and that is a problem. Real becomes a weaselly word. More of a based on real. If you look through the logs and see time and date you will notice that there are “bits missing”. Why? Could be because those bits would show a particular log in better light or provide context. We don’t know. What we do know is that the person leaking them promised more to come.

Now I don’t know at this point about you, but when I heard that, I automatically thought “Why later, why did they not release it all in one fell swoop?”. The answer to me, that popped straight into my head, is that they needed to “work on it”.

I want you to imagine you are at school (Yes, this is exceedingly hard for a middle-aged man like me but when I see crap like this in Gamergate my mind is somewhat cast back) . You come across a diary of someone you hate. You take it to your friends. You look through and KNOW that what you are reading is the real deal. Now lets pretend similar situation except that your friend brings it to you. It “seems” mostly right but some of the bits look slightly different and foreign to the diary. How much of the diary are you going top believe absolutely?

Whilst the chat log was altered and headers were doctored into it, THEY were transparently obvious. But even a technological retard like my good self could change the font and size of the text. Select the right one and the leaker can change the logs?

Question is Why? Because: changing context; Changing who said something; Cutting out waffle; putting a slightly different spin, is what makes a tighter and more interesting narrative, and may paint villains as more loathesome. If only they had not done so damn badly with the header in the first instance.

Does that mean any of the chat is genuine? I would say absolutely. What is not altered is real. Were all the people in the chat logs part of the group? Maybe. Did each thing said come from that person the log said or by someone else in there? Probably for the most part. Were any bits removed? Most certainly (As said it was not in its entirety according to leaker who would be releasing more) Was most of it intellectual conversation, strident operative planning against others or rambling shit talking? Rambling shit talking. Can it be trusted in to present it in context? No.

So what exactly would be the point in altering it further? As much as it pains me that I cannot think of a better way to show a different example

 

So that is the visual example of something REAL but in its entirety not “trustworthy” or to be taken seriously. We are talking in textual terms but the same applies. There is good reason to what to enhance something. Unlike the above where you can tell the things said out of context and the added bits, and with it being done as a mickey take, textually done with intent to enhance to positions, it may not be as easily recognised.

You and I do not know how much of the chat logs are real or altered/doctored/tampered with. We just know they have been at least a little. Take it with a grain of salt (not uncommon in these parts lately) and a healthy amount of skepticism.

Don’t read the logs? Why not? Go for your life. Enjoy with the same abandon as opening someone else’s mail or looking through their drawer, or medicine cabinet, computer files or reading through their diary. Trawl through to see any mention of your name. Then once that desire is sated, for fuck’s sake, put it behind you and concentrate on the remnants of Gamergate.

If this seems kind of pointless and petty and juvenile and not worth pursuing, believe me I am with you. Don’t give people shit about it, just let them get it out of their system. Let them feel their cathartic rage or moral indignation of “Well, I never” and exhaust their gossip. It will pass. At least people are engaged.

If we could harness that motivation that exists to hurt Ralph and anyone who is associated with him and channel that against Progressive media, we would move closer to the cohesive arse kicking watchdogs we want to be and less the squabbling clown show Gamergate has been lately. I reckon that would be unreal.

 

 

 

Cult of Vivian, really???

You know I have had my issues with CultofVivian. But I have also acknowledged that whilst she has been intellectually dishonest and gets into a lot of passive aggressive bullshit, not everything she does or says is bad.

In fact she DOES signal boost a lot of good causes and at times comes in with decent quips against ridiculous assertions made by gaming press and such. The fact that she is super active and has a large following (containing many white knights, I have found) gives her a fair bit of social capital in Gamergate. Good for her.

Now here is the thing. I can recognise the good without trusting her. I will still call out dumb shit. I don’t care who you are. So here comes some really dumb shit. Brace yourselves.

Cult of Vivian is now saying this shit:

Dropping the #Gamergate hashtag

Now I don’t think I need to explain to most reasoned people that this is a fucking bad idea.

But I think as much as we see this dilution that would inevitably result as a means of “opening the gates” to the more moderate SJWs and then in turn they would step aside and let through less moderate SJWs and our diluted presence would be of no consequence, the more interesting question is why CultofVivian may think it is a good idea?

Now there are two kneejerk reactions:

  1. She is an SJW traitor, so why would she do otherwise.
  2. She is bloody stupid and hasn’t got the intellect to do otherwise.

I don’t think so. I have given it more thought. I think it is something a bit more tragic.

I think she is hustling for more control and more social capital. How? Think on it.

With the hashtag you search the hashtag to find what is happening and what opinions are getting boosted. It doesn’t matter if it is something from CultofVivian, Dr Evil, Ralph, OliverCampbell, Milo, OtterJesus or whomever. You can look under the tag and see what opinions and what you consider. You have an opinion? Posting it on #Gamergate posts it to the masses. Want to follow people from Gamergate? Read through the tweets and follow who you like. Want to rally the troops? You post it to the common rallying point. No leaders.

Drop the hashtag and you suddenly lose that common rallying point. The rallying point becomes the more notable people from Gamergate. You want to see who else to follow in Gamergate? Too late. Unless they are followers of the people you follow bad luck. Do you have 200 to 300 followers and an important message to get out? Who is going to carry that or be the gatekeeper to putting that out there? People more popular and more notable to you. They now have more power. Make sure you do not offend. They will exclude you like the Indie Devs that do not tow the line and are not in the right clique.

Ralph I think rightly bought this to light. It was not just CultofVivian that was invested in this bullshit. There were other notables. There too lays a problem. Cult of Vivian with that little bit of control over a base of thousands of followers has convinced them to drop the tag. Now much of what they may want to do may have to be boosted by her (or one of the other big notables). BUT what if she bands together with a group of other big notables. How much control will they have of the supposed “leaderless” group? They collectively become the gamekeepers.

You do not like their ideology? Too fucking bad. Your language too harsh? You argue with the wrong people? You don’t use the right pronouns? You are pro-ethics/anti-SJW (whichever they are against)? Collectively they will determine what Gamergate is and who is in and out. The decisions they make together will not require your input nor your blessing.

THIS is what I think CultofVivian is up to and in the same way that when Ralph bought this up last time, it was secret club house stuff. Its bullshit.

I have said before that the biggest danger of the “liberal” notables is the want to water down Gamergate resolve and look for compromises and being too accepting.

Liberals in Gamergate CAN be problematic

The other side are NOT about being fair. They are not there to compromise with. Show weakness and they simply see an opportunity for a takedown. Play nice and friendly and they will not respect you. Compromise and they will not give ground. They are ideologues. They will see that as having you having given ground.

PR is not something that will be in SJWs power to give

What is COVs definition of an edgelord? (I thought that was the kind of thing Sarah Butts was into?)

What about the normies?

You see here what is happening?

“Don’t be edgelords, play nice. Because if you play nice and are more accepting and nice to your opponents, they will run with that, and people will write nice things about us, and we will be invited to tables, and the doors that have been shut to us will be open, and the respect will flow, and our PR problem will float away…..”

FUCK OFF!

Its all complete unrefined bullshit.

You want an example of a “normie”? Yours truly. I am not a gamer. I like honesty. It took me three days of reading up to determine who was telling the truth and who was not. IF someone is interested they can find out too. As to the job of poisoning the well of credulity for Gamergate, yes it has been done. They have collectively pissed in our wells and like the metaphor, once pissed in, the pissers are not able to reverse the piss nor the effects of said piss in poisoning everything.

In fact what we ought to be doing is replacing them and the industry’s reliance on them. Not making nice. They are arseholes.

Watch CultofVivian closely. This will keep coming up. She has this set in her mind. You can keep telling here it is bad and for all the reasons it is but like the opposing camp, if you do it will be said that you are wrong because you are pro-Ralph or anti-ethics or trying to divide Gamergate, or whatever and your opinion dismissed out of hand. NOTHING will divide Gamergate’s community like removing the hashtag. When the time is right and if she is able to push and demand for tone policing, ethics only, Pro-KIA, Anti GG Revolt and anti-Ralph and whatever other divisions, it will hone divisive factions within gamergate and with a bit of pressure, maybe she will be able to carry the day and get enough people to drop the hashtag. Then it will be camps of people with different loyalties and ideas on things and many more thinking “Fuck, this is just too hard”.

If she manages this, I am sure the Anti-Gamergate crowd will cheer. Hell, they may even throw her favours in the new order. The gaming community will not be worth anything if they are given free range and with the tag gone we will not be able to push back.

The Cult of Vivian James is intellectually dishonest and an unfortunate loud voice for #Gamergate

I make no apologies for having been supportive of her and her efforts. She spoke well on videos. She kind of tried to embody the Vivian James thing, and for the most part was pretty nice and reasonable.

No real danger signals or concerns. But then I can’t say I have had a lot of exposure to her. Her star seemed to be rising a bit but no less than many others.

A slight glimpse at another side of her was provided by Ralph. But then maybe Ralph just did not like her. There are plenty of people in Gamergate and we all do not have to like the same people. So I took everything with a grain of salt. I saw evidence of her requesting Mark Kern use proper pronouns for Sarah Butts. I heard Mark left Gamergate on the basis of a small group of louder voices tone and PC policing. It pissed me off. Not complete context but it was pointing her way.

For the record, I think it is as weak as water. So you dislike a particular trans person and you disrespect them by misgendering them. What the Hell is the big deal? NO HONESTLY. What is the big deal? If I piss you off and you misgender me and call me a girl or perhaps you want to go the sexuality route and call me gay or go for my appearance and call me ugly, are THESE things off the table too? No, its different huh? Would I cry into my pillow on hearing such words? Would people flock to dry my tears and defend being called ugly or gay or a girl? Fucking weak.

I was a bit disappointed and yes to be completely honest it took a little bit of shine off my view of her. But it was other things I had heard that were a little more concerning. She was involved in supporting an idea that seemed to undermine Gamergate. Again, not wanting to rely on Ralph’s take on things as he may have had a completely different perspective to me, I questioned her directly. She seemed to confirm what he alluded to and took umbrage with him “speaking out of class” about it and making it sound bad, rather than actually being dishonest about it. I was mortified. “How could anyone who is supportive of Gamergate think of such an idea..and how the Hell could it be supported?” It was crazy. Nope …not yet.

(Hyperlinks in blue are to chains of tweets)

Terrible idea Bloody right it shouldn’t. It was a TERRIBLE idea. Almost up there with, “Do you think there would be less drama if we all just conceded?”

Dishonest Interpretation I missed it first time around. Vivian pretending I was talking about taking away freedom of speech. So many things wrong with this. Firstly, she isn’t stupid. You could perhaps accept an absolute idiot may get it wrong. Secondly, a Gamergate supporter has come to her in respect to support SHE seemed to be giving to an idea that would kill of Gamergate. A cause certainly in part fighting to keep freedoms in the gaming industry. To keep out the authoritarians. A movement mostly populated by Libertarians, to whom such freedoms are paramount…….AND THE FIRST thing she concluded was that I was interested in taking those freedoms away. I mean how else could that have been interpreted right?

No, she is not that stupid. She was being dishonest.

Feigning ignorance Unfortunately if you have seen what she writes and hear her videos you know she is not this stupid to be continually missing the point. Its deliberate. (I reported in another article that I disliked how Lynn Walsh did this a bit in SPJ Airplay. I was not the only one to see this. It did keep the peace a bit, but it looked bad…as it does here)

She thinks I am in need of having my own intentions explained to me? The people on the other side the Gamergate debate play this arrogant play a bit. Deliberately misread intent and then haughtily try to imply any number of premises, positions, intentions and such that you do not hold or have. Whilst trying to imply moral or intellectual higher ground over you, based on these imaginary positions they “want” (?) you to hold. Then seeking not to debate these positions or contest whether you in fact hold them at all.

Think of every smear of AGG threats. Any position or intent they accuse us off with respect to women in gaming or whatever. This is precisely what happens.

(“Oh no it doesn’t” You laugh “The AGG’s block us instead of arguing” Keep reading.)

Yup I would not pander to her rudeness and so I was blocked Pretty straightforward. Big ego and someone not towing her narrative and refusing to be condescended to. So what does the dishonest person do?

Explaining to Dan the White Knight Reading this in context it should be obvious that I was not honestly having a freak out about him restricting free speech. It was a analogy to Vivian’s earlier efforts to misrepresent

Explaining it as well as I can Hopefully YOU all can see the similarity and where I am coming from. Do not allow liking someone from calling it as it is

9 out of 10 White knights agree Even Dan registers where I was coming from here

No victims here If you asked Ralph whether what he did or said to Vivian, was called for, or nice He’d probably say something like “I don’t give a fuck. I hate that cosplaying bitch” (or words to that effect). Fair enough. I would imagine if you asked Vivian you would get a response highlighting how bad he is and what he said to her. Certainly her Twitter feeds read this way. See the difference?

She was baiting him as much as he was going at her. Yes she was probably a Hell of a lot more subtle and using nicer language but let’s not call it what it isn’t. They are both adults and they can fight it out

The truth is, of course, this is NOT really much about Vivian and Ralph. As I said they can fight each other to their heart content. I do not care much. Much in the way that Gamergate is not about Zoe.

She is a trusted and notable loud voice in Gamergate and her lack of honesty and her PC policing and tone policing is a concern.

In a case of pure irony This Psychology Student is all hypocrisy and guilt tripping/shaming

Now did you read what I read?

Vivian@CultOfVivian · Sep 13

It’s one thing to try to force everyone in gaming/gamergate to be politically correct, it’s another to just be PC yourself. @full_mcintosh
Then in the same thread

Vivian@CultOfVivian

someone deserves to be misgendered. Trans acceptance shouldn’t hinge on whether you like someone. @jkellytwit@aquapendulum@full_mcintosh

Pronouns? Fucking pronouns? This person is a pedo and we should humour them with correct pronouns. She forces people to be PC or is she just being PC herself. LOL

Yes and I did see her blame Ralph directly for Game Diviner’s breakdown. More intellectual dishonesty, but this is all par for the course it seems.

Why does any of this matter? Because WE ARE ALL Stakeholders in GG. When louder voices and bigger names are scuttling gamergate and supporting crap, its a worry. When one of the recognised “nice guys/gals” is intellectually dishonest and a PC policeman/policewoman. Its a worry. When they adopt tactics we have seen with our opposition, it ought to place us on our guard.

We should ALL be working together NOT being sneaky, subversive, dishonest, tone policing, PC policing and undermining gamergate. THAT is NOT good. THAT termites us from the inside out.

For the record, I think Ralph is reactive, opinionated, arrogant, brash, unsubtle, and probably a lot of other things. What I do not see is how any of these traits are necessarily bad and bad for us. Furthermore I am not a big fan of nice. I never have been. Fair and honest is a better things to aim for and they are not mutually inclusive. I trust Ralph. I trust him to act consistently and to be him 100% of the time. I do not expect he will say the “right” things but I expect him to call it how he sees it.

I can’t say the same anymore for Vivian. Very disappointing