Jump to content
Yoshimax

GAF Meltdown - owner accused

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, probotector said:

If anything, rllmuk needs to take this opportunity to get some new members, most of the outrage culture loving sjw white knights will love it here!

 

I think its mostly in the General Gaming and Off Topic, many people are like that... those are the 2 boards im in least here cause people often get in some sort of pissing competition, relying on insulting others for opinions, arguing (to no end) in semantics,  and putting words in peoples mouths. It's very stressfull and i imagine many people go there to vent and take it out on randoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the best reads here are in the sub-forums.

 

It's just sad that so many on the left are not open minded to things and see everything in black and white. It just leads to echo-chambers.

 

What I like about rllmuk is that there is a mix of opinions, granted some of the snowflakes like simmy can get abusive but I know it's their way of expressing their opinions as best they can.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@probotector

 

Why exactly are you taking Malka's account at face value? Is it because he is a man?

 

You talk about evidence but there is no evidence either way. If anyone here is pushing an agenda, it's those blaming the victim in order to protect Malka.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DC LEMON said:

 

This is his response to the news.

 

 

He admits to feeling 'smarmy' and 'vindicated'.

 

He does come across as smarmy and quite annoying but his general thread through the video about the double standards of NeoGAF seems reasonable. I should add I didn’t use NeoGAF and have no idea who that guy actually is, I also don’t follow his gamergate points - he said he was against so much of it so I don’t understand which bits he supported. He seems to struggle linking his support for one aspect of it to it looking like he agrees with it all. It’s likely a case of shades of grey rather than black and white but you have to pick things to support/be associated with. For example, UKIP or the BNP might come up with brilliant education policies but I wouldn’t vote for them because I liked that aspect, sometimes it a case of seeing the bigger picture.

 

edit - typed this before probotector made a black & white comment too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, probotector said:

Yeah, the best reads here are in the sub-forums.

 

It's just sad that so many on the left are not open minded to things and see everything in black and white. It just leads to echo-chambers.

 

What I like about rllmuk is that there is a mix of opinions, granted some of the snowflakes like simmy can get abusive but I know it's their way of expressing their opinions as best they can.

 

There's being open minded and then there's ignoring the facts in order to push your own misogynistic ideals.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Illyria said:

@probotector

 

Why exactly are you taking Malka's account at face value? Is it because he is a man?

 

You talk about evidence but there is no evidence either way. If anyone here is pushing an agenda, it's those blaming the victim in order to protect Malka.

 

Please don't think I'm someone who always "takes the man's side". I've got a mum, a partner and sisters, I wouldn't want them to be subjected to sexual assaults/harassment/rape etc 

 

My point is, we should approach these matters with open minds and not condemn straight away. Do I think Harvey Weinstein is a sex offender shitlord? Fuck Yeah. Jimmy Saville? Fuck yeah. Most of those MPs and that PM accused of child abuse? Fuck yeah.

 

But her account and the circumstances around their relationship rang alarm bells for me as did the reason for this to go viral the way it has. Gamer-gaters have beef with neogaf so they've IMO made a lot of smoke from a small fire.

 

I can only imagine what this woman is going through now that her account has been hijacked by a bunch of clowns who really don't give a fuck about her and are just manipulating the situation to rile of "progressive" outrage culture loving neogaf users.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, probotector said:

I've got a mum, a partner and sisters

As rightly pointed out, this is utterly irrelevant. People without female family members should be able to function as an empathetic human and not be a dick.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, probotector said:

I used it ironically after someone mentioned it, I apologise...

 

Although I would point out I was called a cunt without a similiar strong reaction from a mod!

 

I edited it as it was posted and told him not to do it as general abuse. ‘Snowflake’ is a different kind of loaded insult typically used by the alt-right isn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harsin said:

While the main forum on there is now clusterfuck of account suicides and alt--righters with a semi at 'winning', pretty much every thread in their 'Community' forum is just people saying quite sweet thanks and goodbyes to each other and then leaving for Discord while they decide where they're moving to.

 

enterprise-pods-gif.gif

 

You'll be lucky if the place is GameFAQs level by the time this is over.

It reminds me of the old pre-social media Internet, which was all disparate forums and communities who would sometimes have dramas and wars with each other or incidents which would cause people to leave. 

 

This place is one of the few survivors of that era I suppose. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kryptonian said:

 

I edited it as it was posted and told him not to do it as general abuse. ‘Snowflake’ is a different kind of loaded insult typically used by the alt-right isn’t it?

 

Snowflake was originally an alt-right term but TBH everyone just throws it around to wind people up and now it IMO just means a person who can't accept an alternative viewpoint.

 

e.g. alt-righters tend to be the biggest snowflakes out there...

 

edit - come on...this post didnt deserve a neg???!!

  • Downvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TehStu said:

 

Yup, I dare say most people who aren't cunts would enjoy it here.

 

Is this the post you are talking about @probotector? If so you were not directly called a cunt. If you associate yourself with the type of people @TehStu was directing it at though...

Edited by keptbybees
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, probotector said:

 

Snowflake was originally an alt-right term but TBH everyone just throws it around to wind people up and now it IMO just means a person who can't accept an alternative viewpoint.

 

e.g. alt-righters tend to be the biggest snowflakes out there...

 

It wasn’t originally an alt-right term, it has become adopted by them though to try make out that people who disagree with them are too delicate and emotionally unbalanced to accept opposing views.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, keptbybees said:

 

Is this the post you are talking about @probotector? If so you were not directly called a cunt.

 

No, there was another post where shimmyhill called me a cunt and i've called him a snowflake (in jest TBH) and got called out on it and told to go back a "yank filled shithole" which sounds kinda racist and abusive to me.

 

I guess it's not just Evilore that's an alleged hypocritical mod!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, keptbybees said:

 

Is this the post you are talking about @probotector? If so you were not directly called a cunt. If you associate yourself with the type of people @TehStu was directing it at though...

 

I assumed it was this one:

 

 

Maybe there are more though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, probotector said:

 

No, there was another post where shimmyhill called me a cunt and i've called him a snowflake (in jest TBH) and got called out on it and told to go back a "yank filled shithole" which sounds kinda racist and abusive to me.

I'm a yank, go ahead and tell me how it's "kinda" racist. If making it clear that this language isn't welcome here is abusive, then yeah, it was abusive.

 

edit -  I should qualify that I have no interest in parsing whether it was used ironically or not. You're perpetuating the language of the alt-right.

 

Quote

 

I guess it's not just Evilore that's an alleged hypocritical mod!

I'm not a mod. If you think someone has broken the rules, report the post.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, probotector said:

 

No, there was another post where shimmyhill called me a cunt and i've called him a snowflake (in jest TBH) and got called out on it and told to go back a "yank filled shithole" which sounds kinda racist and abusive to me.

 

I guess it's not just Evilore that's an alleged hypocritical mod!

 

tehstu isn’t a mod, and to compare him to Evilore is a bit off isn’t it?

 

What are you trying to say? You’re an embarrassment in this thread, I’m struggling to find a reason not to ban you to be honest.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be racist against your own race.

 

UK Law at least.

 

I've taken an alternative viewpoint, I've not really been abusive apart from one count of using the term snowflake ironically.

 

Banning people for disagreeing and posting views you don't agree with just leads to an echo chamber.

 

But I'll stop posting as i dont want to get banned!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring all the surrounding assumptions about both individuals, this a is a domestic issue between two people, with differing accounts of an event which may constitute sexual harassment.

 

Everybody here agrees, that if true it is disgusting behaviour and if reported to the proper authorities for investigation may have led to a conviction.

 

However it was instead announced via social media, after the fact, with no evidence to prove it one way or another. And I get that a lot of women feel that they cannot speak out about abuse and harassment, and this was done under the #metoo tag. As a result people here have a strong response of sympathy for the accuser and have made their mind up about the accused. Whilst others don't think they can draw a conclusion, and that therefore the status quo should largely remain, rather than the jury and punishment carried out via the internet.

 

The reason this thread has turned nasty, as so many of these discussions on this forum do, and why the tone of my posts became anatgonistic, is because those that sympathise with the alleged victim and believe her account of events cannot accept that those who believe "innocent until proven guilty" are also empathetic people. They've hurled accusations of victim-shaming, misogyny, defending sexual assault etc. at people for expressing their opinion. So when SMD mistakenly refers to the incident as a rape and I correct him, other posters try to pull me up on what I'd define as a serious sexual assault to misrepresent my point.

 

The bias some posters have against GAF is also a factor in this. And so what you end up with is a place where dissenting opinions, even ones that are not remotely offensive and are well-justified, are hounded out because they don't subscribe to the majority agenda of the day.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kryptonian said:

What are you trying to say? You’re an embarrassment in this thread, I’m struggling to find a reason not to ban you to be honest.

I'm staying out of this because from where I'm sitting a reasonable debate on this just isn't possible (he says right before....), but we need to be careful with this surely - we can't just give him a ban because we don't agree with him - can we? (I admit to not knowing the rules around this at all, so if we can then ignore me lol)

 

If he's made some serious accusations, implications, or said rude words then fair enough...mind you, there would be a few other folks in here that should join him IMO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, probotector said:

 

Please don't think I'm someone who always "takes the man's side". I've got a mum, a partner and sisters, I wouldn't want them to be subjected to sexual assaults/harassment/rape etc 

 

Last time I checked, rapists and sexual predators also have mums.

 

No one is asking you to take her side. Literally all women have done is say "we've had these common experiences" and if you get defensive then that's on you, not them.

 

Frankly, if a woman told me something I'd done or said deeply upset or messed them up, I'd immediately want to change my behaviour if I still made the same mistakes.

 

Not shut down an entire community as collateral damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

However it was instead announced via social media, after the fact, with no evidence to prove it one way or another. And I get that a lot of women feel that they cannot speak out about abuse and harassment, and this was done under the #metoo tag. As a result people here have a strong response of sympathy for the accuser and have made their mind up about the accused. Whilst others don't think they can draw a conclusion, and that therefore the status quo should largely remain, rather than the jury and punishment carried out via the internet.

 

You're kind of ignoring that the accused guy has a history of sexual abuse/harassment that was previously brought to light and he didn't contest happened.

 

It's not that people are believing the accuser/woman and taking their side in all cases (which reading between the lines seems to be your real issue), just that in this specific case it's very plausible and he doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RubberJohnny said:

You're kind of ignoring that the accused guy has a history of sexual abuse/harassment that was previously brought to light and he didn't contest happened.

 

And you're ignoring they had a relationship after.

I said at the start of the post to ignore secondary assumptions about both individuals. There is a lot of uncorroborated info on either of them that could sway you one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, grindmouse said:

And you're ignoring they had a relationship after.

 

I don't really see how it's relevant? You seem to be using this as "proof" that her claim is false, and that we shouldn't believe women because a lot of them are harlots or snakes with tits who make up accusations to ruin men or whatever. As I said, it's pretty unpleasant stuff and you seem to have some issues with women if you've got this big chip on your shoulder.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rgraves said:

I'm staying out of this because from where I'm sitting a reasonable debate on this just isn't possible (he says right before....), but we need to be careful with this surely - we can't just give him a ban because we don't agree with him - can we? (I admit to not knowing the rules around this at all, so if we can then ignore me lol)

 

It’s difficult for sure. It depends on what the disagreement is about I guess - the mods had that same mindset for a time (too long a time really) with FreddyGotFingered, the discussion was around can we ban him just because we disagree with his opinions? It was slightly more clear cut due to racism there but there have been a number of reports on this guy and it’s hard to tell apart from trolling - when questioned, goal posts are moved and the discussion goes around and around, it gets more difficult at that stage but it’s also hard to believe someone is debating in good faith.

 

A point to consider would be that I would ask other mods opinions - it might be that I am being overly harsh so I would rather check with the others as well as people in the thread but I do feel he is sailing very close to the wind with regards to the rules at this point.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

he doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

Everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt - certainly we are all far too far away from the facts of this case to make a call either way. We should presume the victim is telling the truth, and the accused is innocent until proven otherwise.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.