Games

21193 readers

171 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
Mark spoilers
No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review. :silly-liberator:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

jack@hexbear.net

RiotDoll@hexbear.net

I asked Gamergaters if they’d accept a pragmatic alliance with sex-positive liberal feminists. The answer wasn’t “no” — it was “alliances are impossible.” (hexbear.net)

submitted 5 days ago by NoahFuel@hexbear.net to c/games@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently asked a simple question in a Gamergate-adjacent space:

"Would you support a pragmatic alliance with sex-positive / liberal feminists against sex-negative / radical feminists?"

I wasn’t asking for ideological agreement — just whether temporary, issue-based alignment was possible.

After dozens of responses, the answer became very clear that They are not open to an alliance, pragmatic or otherwise. Not with sex-positive feminists. Not with liberal feminists. Not with anyone who still accepts the label “feminist.”

Many responses explicitly said any form of feminism is unacceptable, regardless of policy or overlap. Internal distinctions (sex-positive vs sex-negative, liberal vs radical) were rejected outright.

Multiple commenters stated that even if feminists agreed with them on a specific issue, alignment was still impossible. Identity mattered more than outcomes.

Several replies framed alliances as inherently manipulative (“you’d just make us pawns,” “any inch given will be used against us”). Compromise was treated as surrender, not strategy.

Most arguments centered on media aesthetics, DEI, HR departments, and branding

A few commenters acknowledged that different feminist factions exist — but immediately collapsed that distinction again by assuming hostile intent (“they all exploit men,” “it’s all the same underneath”).

TL:DR- this "Expirment" was fruitless

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Parts of it definitely were. Probably most. But there are some human mistakes too.

I wasn’t asking for ideological agreement — just whether temporary, issue-based alignment was possible.

A few commenters acknowledged that different feminist factions exist — but immediately collapsed that distinction again by assuming hostile intent (“they all exploit men,” “it’s all the same underneath”).

Very chatgpt ass sentences. Em dash. Word choice. Overall structure. This is exactly how chatgpt writes

After dozens of responses, the answer became very clear that They are not open to an alliance, pragmatic or otherwise.

The capital They seems very human, ai wouldn't do that. Most of the rest of this seems like ai to me, or at least structured like ai writes. AI wouldn't misspell experiment though, and would end sentences with punctuation. The TLDR definitely looks human for example.

If you look at their old posts they are clearly human and don't use chatgpt structure, em dashes, etc. Have human mistakes, structure and word choice. They use hyphens instead of em dashes. They don't look anything like ai, so its weird to me they all of a sudden start talking like ai does. They just do not talk like this.