I'm glad you have found it interesting, do come back and discuss it when you've had a think about it.

I assume that's a joke rather than an accusation :)

I offered an opinion relevant to stuff OP had an opinion on. OP wrote that if someone upsets the "bear" (meaning an internet mob or something similar) the person who upset the bear has a personal responsibility and should accept the consequences, and the media has no business making that person a victim.

I don't agree with that. Especially not if the consequences involve harassment and threats. I think that's a fair disagreement, and a fair point to make, given the OP.

I clearly stated that the person has a responsibility to using common sense BEFORE getting involved, that does not blame the person who has been harrased nor does it excuse the behaviour of the harrasers, it does however suggest that, and quite rightly so "if the media is full of reports of people being threats and reaches of privacy from people of a particular group, maybe the group should be avoided rather than provoked"

And if a woman disagrees with something a group is accused of doing, she is perfectly right in saying what she thinks, but this isn't a random person being assaulted/doxed/threatened out of the blue, this is a person that intentionally provoked a group widely linked in the media to previous threatening behaviour.

This isn't victim blaming, this is asking for some common sense to be exercised.

There is a massive difference between having an opinion and being attacked for it, and being attacked as a result of direct and clear provocation.

Very good read.

As a consumer who went from the 5th gen directly to the second half of the 7th gen, I can relate to this thread.

It all comes down to money, because while the videogame industry went to strtospheric numbers of production values, the videogame specialized media on the other hand had to subsist with less income (since magazines business went downhill), and to balance things and knowing consumers still needed the media but in other formats (however not wanting to paying for it), media started bribing for good/bad coverage on videogames and all the controversies mentality that is hurting the industry in general ever since.

Agreed 100%, anyone who makes a public statement - especially one that might rub people the wrong way - should be prepared that people might consider that person an idiot with stupid opinions.

I do not agree at all, whatsoever. This idea is antithetical to a working democracy. Anyone is free to disagree with you, no matter your disposition. If it were any other way, we would be awarding bad behavior with the right to never have people disagree with you.

And should you be talking about #GamerGate supporters or "gamers" or Anonymous as those who Must Never Be Offended, that's kind of silly. Anonymous not being a hivemind, really, and not having any particular opinion, and #GamerGate being /pol/ kiddies who didnt get the joke. Note that I accept the possibility the group you're talking about might be someone else.

The media reports on behaviour which violates the rules of civilized discourse and civilized disagreement. Having stupid opinions does not violate those rules. Threats and harassment does violate those rules. For this reason, the media is 100% right in reporting on, and vocally denouncing people who are out of bounds.

That's a 1st amendment issue. The value we're protecting here is the right of anyone to have opinions and offer them anywhere and at any time. Including stupid opinions, and opinions which offend people.

You'd have to specify where you feel the difference is between an acceptable opinion and "clear provocation"... Unless you do, I strongly disagree with this.

It's quote obvious.

Opinion: One person to another - "Hmm, i think that person over there isn't very intelligent"

Clear provocation: To the 'unintelligent person' "WHATS UP FA FUCKIN RETARD?"

Not really seeing why you are having an issue with it.

This is nothing to do with media coverage, this is simply common sense since an insult is not an opinion.

The entire reason the topic was even brought up was not for the topic itself but how the media covered the topic.

That's perfectly reasonable if we're talking about me being invited into your home and implying you're stupid or something.

But it's completely wrong if you're talking about public persons making public statements about political issues or whatever. For god's sake, I bet freaking Jay Leno has suggested Sarah Palin is stupid on any number of occations. That doesnt give Palin supporters the right to harrass or threaten Jay Leno. If they did, then the media would be 100% right in coming down on them.

This is basic stuff about life in a democracy.

I understand that you for one reason or another dont want to divulge the identity of the person you're talking about. But maybe you could explain in general terms what the "insult" was. Whether you're being reasonable or not depends on that, I'd say.

Really now, try using the bolded line to a cop and see how far democracy gets you.
Conversely, approach a gang on the street and insult them, and see how far democracy gets you.

But would you though? would you do it under the assumption that your rights protect you, or would you NOT do so, because "doing that would be stupid" ?