Aggravating Hipster SJWs and left-wing burn out

[GSK Lives]

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

I'm a bit lost on that, I don't recall Gamergate just mindlessly going after indiegames as a baseline

Go Youtube SyrianPartisanGirl, one of their spokespeople. She states flat out that indie games are all poorly made and only enjoyed by hipsters, and they all promote a social justice agenda.

Yea, lord knows, when I'm in the shoes of a British bank robber throwing cocaine into pickup trucks while stepping over the bodies of women in riot cuffs while shooting at police officers, I sure feel like I'm fighting the Patriarchy....

You do realise there's no real "spokesperson" for gamergate, look at one you'll see five others saying the exact opposite opinion on those kind of subjects.

I mean it's a bit silly to take one persons word as gospel when there's thousands of people saying their thoughts on the subject.

Was she condemned for that statement by others in the movement?

Aint a movement dude, anyone can post on a hashtag and anyone can be pissed off at jerks throwing their weight around with admin powers/a platform to shout from.

It's a backlash from people who were sick of being treated like s**t simple as that.

Hell, I'd actually support it if that was all there was behind it.

Then I remember who contributed so much to their initial push. Know what /pol/ is, son? You know what THEY put out rhetoric wise?

[GSK Lives]

Oh, and before you say it's not political...

They seem to disagree. This IS about more than "ethics in journalism".

[gearhead-rin]

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

I'm a bit lost on that, I don't recall Gamergate just mindlessly going after indiegames as a baseline

Go Youtube SyrianPartisanGirl, one of their spokespeople. She states flat out that indie games are all poorly made and only enjoyed by hipsters, and they all promote a social justice agenda.

Yea, lord knows, when I'm in the shoes of a British bank robber throwing cocaine into pickup trucks while stepping over the bodies of women in riot cuffs while shooting at police officers, I sure feel like I'm fighting the Patriarchy....

You do realise there's no real "spokesperson" for gamergate, look at one you'll see five others saying the exact opposite opinion on those kind of subjects.

I mean it's a bit silly to take one persons word as gospel when there's thousands of people saying their thoughts on the subject.

Was she condemned for that statement by others in the movement?

Aint a movement dude, anyone can post on a hashtag and anyone can be pissed off at jerks throwing their weight around with admin powers/a platform to shout from.

It's a backlash from people who were sick of being treated like s**t simple as that.

Hell, I'd actually support it if that was all there was behind it.

Then I remember who contributed so much to their initial push. Know what /pol/ is, son? You know what THEY put out rhetoric wise?

Yes I do know what /pol/ is, but you're applying a pretty big genetic fallacy there.
What you're referring to is Burgers and fries.

The vast majority of people had nothing to do with that and were incited by the blatant lies of the gaming sites as well as the "gamers are dead" articles.
Different tag different people same problem they had. Besides noone takes /pol/ocks too serious anyway.

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

[GSK Lives]

gearhead-rin

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

I never said that. Nor do I believe it. People can be mad all day every day at those sites, and hey, they even have a case to be made to be mad against them.

But at the same time, one can also point out when a movement (and it's a movement, deny it though you might. Just one visit to 8chan will destroy the notion it isn't) is more than what it claims it is.

[gearhead-rin]

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

I never said that. Nor do I believe it. People can be mad all day every day at those sites, and hey, they even have a case to be made to be mad against them.

But at the same time, one can also point out when a movement (and it's a movement, deny it though you might. Just one visit to 8chan will destroy the notion it isn't) is more than what it claims it is.

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

[GSK Lives]

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

I never said that. Nor do I believe it. People can be mad all day every day at those sites, and hey, they even have a case to be made to be mad against them.

But at the same time, one can also point out when a movement (and it's a movement, deny it though you might. Just one visit to 8chan will destroy the notion it isn't) is more than what it claims it is.

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

So explain the presence of Brietbart.com and American Enterprise Institute in GamerGate then.

[gearhead-rin]

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

I never said that. Nor do I believe it. People can be mad all day every day at those sites, and hey, they even have a case to be made to be mad against them.

But at the same time, one can also point out when a movement (and it's a movement, deny it though you might. Just one visit to 8chan will destroy the notion it isn't) is more than what it claims it is.

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

So explain the presence of Brietbart.com and American Enterprise Institute in GamerGate then.

Explain what about them? Sites/groups that have people interested in the controversy.
I have no doubt Brietbart in particular see's it as a lucrative choice to weigh in on the subject.
It's not as if everyone in Gamergate reads Brietbart or watches the AEI videos.

[GSK Lives]

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

I never said that. Nor do I believe it. People can be mad all day every day at those sites, and hey, they even have a case to be made to be mad against them.

But at the same time, one can also point out when a movement (and it's a movement, deny it though you might. Just one visit to 8chan will destroy the notion it isn't) is more than what it claims it is.

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

So explain the presence of Brietbart.com and American Enterprise Institute in GamerGate then.

Explain what about them? Sites/groups that have people interested in the controversy.
I have no doubt Brietbart in particular see's it as a lucrative choice to weigh in on the subject.
It's not as if everyone in Gamergate reads Brietbart or watches the AEI videos.

Coulda fooled me for how much they love linking Christina Hoff Summers videos or every article Milo writes.

And thank you for proving my point; If political groups are interested in the controversy, well thenson, it's a political controversy. Next question.

[gearhead-rin]

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

You're essentially saying people don't have a right to be mad or against these websites just because someone you find morally objectionable were also mad and against those websites, guilt by association and no real attempts at understanding the people behind the hurricane of differing views and opinions.

I never said that. Nor do I believe it. People can be mad all day every day at those sites, and hey, they even have a case to be made to be mad against them.

But at the same time, one can also point out when a movement (and it's a movement, deny it though you might. Just one visit to 8chan will destroy the notion it isn't) is more than what it claims it is.

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

So explain the presence of Brietbart.com and American Enterprise Institute in GamerGate then.

Explain what about them? Sites/groups that have people interested in the controversy.
I have no doubt Brietbart in particular see's it as a lucrative choice to weigh in on the subject.
It's not as if everyone in Gamergate reads Brietbart or watches the AEI videos.

Coulda fooled me for how much they love linking Christina Hoff Summers videos or every article Milo writes.

And thank you for proving my point; If political groups are interested in the controversy, well thenson, it's a political controversy. Next question.

I don't recall saying that it wasn't? It's whatever you want to get out of it. Personally I don't care about politics left or right so I just ignore it entirely so it isn't to me. If it's about politics to you that is your view.
As a side note Christina Hoff Sommers is a registered Democrat if that whole left vs right viewpoint bothers you so much.

[GSK Lives]

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

So explain the presence of Brietbart.com and American Enterprise Institute in GamerGate then.

Explain what about them? Sites/groups that have people interested in the controversy.
I have no doubt Brietbart in particular see's it as a lucrative choice to weigh in on the subject.
It's not as if everyone in Gamergate reads Brietbart or watches the AEI videos.

Coulda fooled me for how much they love linking Christina Hoff Summers videos or every article Milo writes.

And thank you for proving my point; If political groups are interested in the controversy, well thenson, it's a political controversy. Next question.

I don't recall saying that it wasn't? It's whatever you want to get out of it. Personally I don't care about politics left or right so I just ignore it entirely so it isn't to me. If it's about politics to you that is your view.
As a side note Christina Hoff Sommers is a registered Democrat if that whole left vs right viewpoint bothers you so much.

Democrat doesn't mean a whole lot. She's still a conservative.

[X of Castigation]

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

GSK Lives

gearhead-rin

And yet the majority of people who post to gamergate never even glance at 8chan, and many on 8chan never actually interact with others on different sites. The vast majority of people just do their own thing in loosely connected ways.

So explain the presence of Brietbart.com and American Enterprise Institute in GamerGate then.

Explain what about them? Sites/groups that have people interested in the controversy.
I have no doubt Brietbart in particular see's it as a lucrative choice to weigh in on the subject.
It's not as if everyone in Gamergate reads Brietbart or watches the AEI videos.

Coulda fooled me for how much they love linking Christina Hoff Summers videos or every article Milo writes.

And thank you for proving my point; If political groups are interested in the controversy, well thenson, it's a political controversy. Next question.

I don't recall saying that it wasn't? It's whatever you want to get out of it. Personally I don't care about politics left or right so I just ignore it entirely so it isn't to me. If it's about politics to you that is your view.
As a side note Christina Hoff Sommers is a registered Democrat if that whole left vs right viewpoint bothers you so much.

That does not mean somebody is not a s**t head, fyi.

Christina Hoff Sommers is certified grade a s**t head.

[Gadita]

What side supports a greater introduction of racial, sexual, and other diversity in games, is what I want to know? How does this relate to issues of dudes being asses to girls playing games in general, because apparently it's supposed to be an all-boys club? For example I personally witnessed a few years ago some dudes complaining that Bioware allowed you to play as a strong female character and woo NPC's of the same sex if you wanted to? The hell?

Because the side that actually promotes diversity and recognizes that girls actually DO play and love video games and that such has been the case since at least the frikin' 80's is the side I am going to support. Whatever that happens to be.

And if this movement has absolutely NOTHING to do with all of the above and NO ONE is claiming that non-whites and females don't play video games and NO ONE is going "waaah this is the safe space for us and just us waaah stop recognizing diversity waaaah"?

Then whoever is associating the movement with all that MRA reverse-discrimination, rape threat nonsense really needs to be ousted, because that s**t is truly toxic and utterly unrealistic, please and thank you.

Besides that and the fact that tropes are indeed a thing, I really don't care. Inside my nerdy friend circles, no one gives a s**t what your gender or sex is when you do the nerd thing... you just do the nerd thing. We play video games and D&D and I think some of us LARP and we read lots of novels and comic books and see movies and pretty much have a rad time, and over half of us are female and/or queer and that's also rad.

[Artan Zuill]

Frankly, I never saw the gaming community as being important enough to warrant all the attention this gamergate stuff garnered. I mean, we didn't have more important things to get all riled up about? I'm sorry but where a woman stacks up in video games just isn't important...much like the gaming industry, itself.

[TechnicolorGentleman]

TechnicolorGentleman

im bothered lmao
crying

TechnicolorGentleman

jk!!!!!!!!!
mrgreen mrgreen mrgreen

Friend was on my account, sorry about that. sweatdrop