Forums / Discussion / General

> a talentless writer more concerned with looking like a rejected Super Saiyan from Nazi Germany.

I remember the memes back when Milo first went Super Aryan.

@DirkDiggums

I think that means "GamerGate pointed out that everyone prominent gets internet death threats and that calling it misogyny when it happens to women is dumb. That is unacceptable".

Also you'd have enough money to buy solid-gold sex-bots powered by diamonds.

@Garde

Huh, apparently free speech doesn't protect the right of sleazy tabloids to publish secretly filmed revenge porn without losing a bunch of money to lawsuits.

Who could have seen that coming?

Edit: Stunning Sextuple Spring Sakura Song Spectacular New Page Get!!!

Welp, its only a matter of time before criticizing certain people becomes a hate crime and is made illegal in Germany. I can't wait to get out of this place.

So basically exactly this happened with the woman from Ghostbusters:

And now Milo is suspended on Twitter for some reason.

I'm sure that will end peacefully and in no way cause any form of backlash or other social problems.

You know, I deplore people being bigots and all-around twats on social media, but if someone who's deliberately trying to be offensive gets you to act histrionic and like a victim, it's kind of hard to feel bad for you. Doing these things can motivate trolls to continue their abuse, and sure, there probably are actual bigots and others that aren't right in the head, but some really just want to be edgy because they know what will get the most lulz. Refusing to understand this or countering with irrelevant stuff like "people who troll have mental problems" isn't changing the fact that trolls will still be around unless people can actually do something about it and not just give a stupid speech to the UN or gain some unreasonable measure of control of a social media website.

Holy pink Guaraná Jesus, I didn't expect so many brazilians to know and like Milo.

Given how the one of the most """"famous"""" brazilians right wing politicians is a man who thinks that the millitary dictatorship was a good thing and "saved" Brazil from those damn commies it doens't really suprise me that most HU3zillians would see milo as a reasonable person

If you ask me Milo is rather reasonable. He offends people because he knows that will expose them, but in the inside he seems mostly concerned with freedom.

That and the Gay angenda. He stated hes going to switzerland to lead a pride march through the islamic sections, that gays are fully in their rights to be armed and fight back when attacked. Also hes for Trump because hes against the trans-wave of political correctness that has pushed away gay focus from the left in favor of being politically correct. Stating that Trump is the most pro gay candidate.

There's a Youtube video of him stating this at a gays for trump meet, but im posting via a potato at the moment. I dont necessarily agree 100% with the guy because I see his paradigm and the paradigm of those opposed. However, Twitter is not a government nor publicly controlled platform and thus, despite policies that are posted for all, it can do what it wants. Ethics be damned.

Edit: Video (Still can't find the embed option with the new format.)

Why did Milo get Banned? Twitter drama. A comedian from the Ghostbusters movie was complaining about haters, he suggested it was because the movie wasn't that great, and by extension, her. This lead to a revitializion of the #banmilo hashtag and attributing his fanbase for being the origin of all harassment against the liberal media…

and now there's #freemilo going around now.

And people are calling BS on the comedian for her offensive tweets and drawing comics to highlight the oddity of the situation. But again, Twitter can do what it wants.

We all predicted this.

Im confused. Either shes some PR puppet, someones faking her account, or its a mixture of the two. Can someone clarify and verify whats going on?

Also, theres no mention of the Milo bit.

The best idea for dealing with trolls is simply don't feed the trolls. Or if you have the capability of out trolling them then troll them back 3 times as hard (Mombot has turned that into an art).

Of course "don't feed the trolls" doesn't work when you're dealing with political ideologues instead of trolls, but those are generally easy to tell apart. If you go silent for 72 hours and they're still celebrating "stopping" you those are the ideologues.

@Garde

Twitter can decide its ToS only apply to those with the "wrong" opinions, everyone else can decide that Twitter is a censorious SJW shithole.

How did "private companies have a legal right to censor people!" ever become an argument that's taken seriously?

A dude has a legal right to break-up with his wife by mailing her a video of him fucking her sister & best friend in the ass, are they going to jump on anyone who calls that dude an asshole?

@bookie

I get what you're trying to prove and I agree. The thing is, twitter has an agenda to push and if they can find an "excuse" to administer an action that supports that agenda, they will at the cost of what little morality they seemed to have. People can judge twitter for what it did, but it's probably not going to stop twitter from doing it until their beliefs change (AKA profit is worth more to them than "moral high ground") The funny thing about free will is that one can only control oneself, not others.

However, since this is the internet and I can't tell in context if your questions are rhetorical, I'll do my best to guess the answers as I am not a representative of a company that practices censorship, nor an expert on ethics.

Guess #1.How did “private companies have a legal right to censor people!” ever become an argument that’s taken seriously?

Depends on the audience that wants to take it seriously. Ethics are usually kept in check by Human Resources and the rules about orderly conduct, but if HR becomes lax or the rules were never implemented as the company started up then things can get corrupt. While Public Relations/Marketing is in charge of the message that the company delivers (from the executive team), HR is the moral code. Without any form of moral code and/or a explicit signed document in the employee contract (drafted by HR) that states that an employee or marketing represents the company at all hours on and off the clock, then chaos can ensue.

Guess #2. A dude has a legal right to break-up with his wife by mailing her a video of him fucking her sister & best friend in the ass, are they going to jump on anyone who calls that dude an asshole?

Define "they," you mean twitter? Facetious "Depends on the context, skintone, ethnicity and culture that the guy is from." End Facetious reply While others can raise their level of abstraction (Ignore Who he is and more of What he did) and try to judge accordingly, the ones who can really administer punishment for the whole incident is civil court, provided that the offended parties are pressing charges, the jury and judge are not influenced or corrupted, and the whole thing isn't being broadcasted for ratings on day time television. (assuming America)

Anyway some news: MEANWHILE IN SF

Nevermind… It appears that it's a fake…

Sorry.

figures… I don't understand the people that are faking these tweets. It just gives the impression that the pro-Milo people are desperate and will fake stuff to win the argument. It's not like someone isn't going to find out in a few hours it's fake.

Gamergate Being Blamed for #DNCLeaks

"Despite the e-mails clearly revealing that there was a lot of backroom subterfuge and bureaucratic collusion to undermine Sanders’ run for President, the talk of some journalists was still about underplaying the leaks by pinning the blame on anti-Semitism and #GamerGate talking points."

For anyone unaware, Wikileaks released roughly 20,000 emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee. The emails released so far have revealed several embarrassing things about the inner workings of the DNC during this election cycle. Most of these deal with US politics, which are not germane to the issues around #Gamergate.

However, some emails have suggested collusion between the DNC and several obstinately non-partisan news organizations and news figures, including Politico's Ken Vougle, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, MSNBC President Phil Griffin, CNN's Jake Tapper, and the Washington Post.

The response has been somewhat similar to #GamerGate: accusations that social media, particularly Twitter and to some degree Facebook, is suppressing the story, attacks on the motives or characters of the leaker and those wishing to spread awareness of the story, some of the implicated media organizations trying to discredit the story, and the defense that the behavior exposed was commonplace and therefore not inappropriate.

Some of the same journalists who resisted ethics in gaming journalism, Bob Chipman and Russ Pitts, are now rushing to the defense of the news media, trying to smear people interested in promoting this story as "alt-right dweebs" and and associating it with the GG "harassment" campaign."

Edit: I forgot to mention the charges of antisemitism are extremely disingenuous, as the emails themselves contained some antisemitism and discussed using atheism to smear him during the primaries. As with GG, it is an attempt to undermine the accusers by portraying them as hateful bigots.

This might be a little off-topic and wouldn't call McIntosh a "cuck", but Anthony Fantano makes a rather humorous response to McIntosh being McIntosh:

@Colonel Sandor
Good post.

There's more on that DNC corruption front. The head of the DNC has stepped down and was immediately hired by Hillary's party, plus the Chair was replaced by someone who is incredibly biased. Additionally, the DNC email leaks show collusion of big donors getting federal appointments, which is a violation of US Code 599 and 600.

Also recently broke out an email instructing DNC staff to portray Sanders supporters as violent individuals

So Ethics Scandal in American Democratic party! (Not to many leaks as this is odd parallels to Gamergate but not related to Vidya or enthusiast culture… well maybe political enthusiast culture but still…)

As for gaming news?

Well the nintendo stock dropped

Sadly I can't seem to find more at this time since most of the chatter is about the DNC corruption.

It's really funny how the DNC has been gasping in shock at Trump while referring to Hispanics as "Taco Bowls" and "a loyal brand".

You know, between the casual racial slurs, the targeting Bernie's Jewishness, and their explanation for all the dirt in those emails being "Wikileaks is working for the Russkies!!!" looks the DNC has turned into a parody of the Republican party.

But sure SJWs, affiliate Wikileaks & Bernie Sanders to GamerGate, that's not going to wreck your propaganda campaign at all.

The "Taco Bowl" email is being completely misinterpreted.

That particular email's date is May 6th, aka the day after Cinco de Mayo, and is referring to Trump's "Trump Tower Taco Bowl" selfie.

So the "taco bowl engagement" is exactly that, trying to get more mileage out of embarrassing Trump over that event, probably by having some of their staff astro-turf memes through social media. An example of dirty tricks, but not racism or disdain.

Same goes with the "She wants to keep people ignorant" email. It's actually a paraphrased transcript of an interview answer from Ben Carson. Many have made the mistake of attributing the sentiment to a DNC staffer, including myself elsewhere on these forums.

It is amusing to see a common tactic of the professional left being used against it, but neither is offensive in context.

There are plenty of other examples in these emails of thinking and behavior that are at odds with the Democrat's public stance on diversity and tolerance: treating Latinos as a "brand", making fun of a black woman's name, references to "good gays", antisemitism… The two that seem to be the most catchy are actually relatively benign.

Thank absolute fuck we got out of the EU.

Which you don't want to do to the kid that just got busted with $1,000s of shoplifted merchandise under their bed.

Other news:

South Korea has #gamergate and it's cranked to 11

TL:DR;
Full on hatred of the male sex as a result of a response to a t-shirt. And there's not a lot of reprimands because it's for the women!

Update on Auerbach, Wikipedia is backing the defamation.

Archive.

OH boy. I just got into a arguement with a sibling about Gamergate as they believe that Gamergate is harassment towards women. And I went spaghetti on them as to its origins (Adam Baldwin in response to the Zoe Quinn scandal) and they extracted it as a ton of people ganged up on Leigh Alexander to get her out of a job. (To clarify, I was trying to illustrate one person was trying to capitalize on the # of clicks against a group. And their extraction was that one group was after one person, lynch mob style)

My sibling is out for the day but will be back tomorrow, is there anything I can do to make sure my nararrative sounds like it's not against women? The parts I want to highlight is the harassment conspiracy (where accounts were used to create false harassment thereby turning Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and Leigh) The funding of Con and Fem Frequency and how that's turning out and I feel I should mention the Fine Young Capitalists scandal and the Honey Badger Brigade.

What I did find out is that we have a difference in the definition of sexism:
They believe that Sexism is against women because of history has always painted it that way. Certain words are taken in context as extra offensive because they suggest femininity.

I believe that sexism is prejudice against a gender.

One of the arguements we got into was that Jokes about the male gender can't be seen as sexist because there's been no build up of history. I argued that dumb men jokes can and will perpetuate the idea that men are dumb and therefore will make it be an excuse to continue to portray men in a negative light. It's a form of revenge.

Sadly I'm beginning to think that the Social Justice Classes that were involved in the education of "harassment of women have been here for ages" is going to lead to some eventual twisted version of the reality that is Fight Club. (The book and movie not the… well I can't mention it.)

Well for starters you could begin with the fact that the majority of the people repeating the gamergate harassment narrative are all white men. After that you could point to the fact that many women have outright stated there's no harassment in the game industry (which by extension means gamers aren't causing any harassment). Then you could point out that there's hundreds if not thousands of woman in gamergate itself which wouldn't make any sense if woman were in fact being harassed by gamergate.

At the end of the day though, I find its pointless arguing with people who think that sexism can't occur against men because its historically never happened because that implies there's never been a matriachy when there has in fact been several (its just that that they've all failed horribly). If someone's definition of sexism comes from history then they are an idiot because history is from a lens and its shaped and warped by modern conceptions and ideas. A word that constantly changes definition is not a word, its a weasel and any attempt to make an argument using a word that changes definition constantly is doomed to fail. I know its your sibling but at this point you know, I'm just quite tired of arguing with people who quite literally refuse to debate at all.

Well more information on that front. They have a doctorate, I have a B.A. They went to Sweden, I followed the news and did my best to be aware of both sides (GG's origins broke out when I was graduating) "If there's an attack, who is being hit and why? Is there another story?" I try to walk both lines of the extreme to see what's the most rational answer. So far all I can think of where to start is the claim that Gamergate is a harassment group against women.

I'm sorely tempted to bring up the Law and Order: SJW episode as a proof of how silly it is, but they might take it as fact. My best start would probably be Christa Hoff Summers's research into the narrative, along with challenging the "documented harassment" against women that gamergate has done. There was a dismissal of NotYourShield because "One individual showing contrary does not a group make." If I can get them to list the women harassed by gamergate I might be able to prove it wasn't. The plus side is that even if I lose this argument it might give me a good glimpse into the narrative and how to deconstruct it.

Edit: It's dawning on me that I need to attack their argument, not provide additional information as that would lead to claims of derailment. As soon as the one claim of a narrative shows up I need to place the burden of proof on them. I need to ask why they think that instead of going "no no no, its actually: …" Because that comes off as "I know more than you do, therefore I'm smarter and your opinion doesn't matter." How I frame up the information I'm giving is just as important as point I'm trying to prove with it.

Also @Mr.Killultra Can you give me examples of the Matriarchy and the ones that collapsed? The more factual proof the better.

Regarding failed matriarchies. To be honest the term matriarchy is often confused for the opposite of patriarchy. In this manner a matriarchy does not exist as there as not and never has been a female dominated society. There have been societies that come very close or hold women in very high positions and these are technically considered matriarchies.

Most of these collapsed because they failed to make any real development. Thus it can be concluded that for some reason or another (probably bad luck), a female dominated society or one that aspires to be, is stagnant and unsustainable. These matriarchal societies aren't dead entirely but they're chances of becoming anything more than a footnote or anything bigger than a small part of a larger nation is practically zero.

The Mosuo is a matriarchal society where woman own all the things and do all the stuff.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_tolinks.html
They are collapsing because they did not modernize and china introduced a whole mess of technological changes that effectively ensured that they could not keep up.

The hopi are another matriarchal society. Women own all the things except livestock that were raised by men.
https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/residence/hopi.html
They are not collapsing but they are not developing either. They rely heavily on coal for income and have a small population of ~10k. They are unlikely to last long once coal reserves dry out or when coal becomes unpopular.

The iroquois was also considered matriarchal (again they weren't entirely woman dominated but then again its not like patriarchies were all men dominated).
http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/html/iroquoiswoman.htm
http://uclajournals.org/doi/abs/10.17953/aicr.19.3.y227696897834055?journalCode=aicr
Got screwed by britian's poor negotiation skills and colonialism.

TL;DR Matriarchies haven't exactly had the best luck. Someone could argue that luck has nothing to do with the failures of matriarchies and their inability to catch on. But that person is not me. We are also ignoring the sexism that was world war one conscription that lead millions of men to their deaths over practically nothing. Sexism against men has existed just as long as sexism against women have. Yet I'm surprised that its become societally acceptable to believe that men can't experience sexism.

Thank you, that can help in the future. Especially with the Hopi and Iroquois as the goalpost of "Modern society" will probably be used. (pertaining to the past 240 years that the USA has existed and select bits of western history.)

As for the bit about sexism against men? "It cant exist because men are (always appear to be) in power." And the definition of sexism is:
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

However, it's that word, typically, that does not implicate always. Prejudice happens in one form or another.

Anyway I've filled this up with my own objective material, now for something more relevant!

Killing joke makes a killing

While it only made 3.2 million opening weekend compared to ghostbusters 3.4. Ghostbusters is still airing while killing joke had 1/3rd the theater size, and only two airings through fathom events and generated enough revenue for an encore. Killing joke is direct to DVD/Blu-ray.

Milo continues to be fabulous (still can't embed… Video link)

Gamedropping because Bernie sanders

And the guardian is… severing contracts

Show them this.

Ask why they hate women & minorities if they insist on hand-waving that.

But if they got infected by Sweden probably the best bet is to wait until SOCJUS burns and then try to deprogram them.

This might help:

> Gamedropping because Bernie sanders

> Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll “never” vote for Clinton

Ah yes, those privileged Honduran child refugees and don't get me started on those Haitian peasants.

How privileged much you be to think that the lives of countless third-worlders matter next to the importance of The First Female President™?

> And the guardian is… severing contracts

What? Throwing millions at white elephant vanity projects while letting mad ideologues run riot and selling off the trust that has allowed you to continue through loses for a century doesn't work?

I hate to break this debate but I got some breaking news. Anita $arkeesian made a new Tropes vs Women video titled Are Women Too Hard To Animate?.

Meanwhile at NeoGAF….

>What I did find out is that we have a difference in the definition of sexism:
They believe that Sexism is against women because of history has always painted it that way. Certain words are taken in context as extra offensive because they suggest femininity.
Okay, let me give this one a shot. I'll preface it by saying that I agree with you about negative portrayals of men. A lot of modern theory has a sort of "two wrongs make a right" mentality that historically advantaged groups can be dumped on to make up for that history. Still, it's important to honestly understand the mindset.

Think of John D Rockefeller insulting a poor person (e.g. "filthy bum"), then think of a poor person insulting John D Rockefeller (e.g. "rich prick"). You probably thought the former was more tasteless. The bum has a much rougher life so it's piling on his troubles, whereas Rockefeller is very comfortable so it doesn't really matter. Even though they're both making class-based insults (wealth-ism?), only one of them is really derogatory. Yes your usage is dictionary-correct, but I wouldn't choose to die on the lexical hill. This is the notion of "punching down" versus "punching up" and it's the basis for the colloquial definition of sexism that your sib uses. I don't like this particular concept as it implies you have to rank people Oppression-Olympics style (is a rich gay black man "above" or "below" a poor straight white woman?).

So yeah there's some basis and it makes enough gut sense that it's not worth getting bent out of shape over. Avoid it as an issue.

> As soon as the one claim of a narrative shows up I need to place the burden of proof on them.
Exactly, but be nice about it. "How did you reach that conclusion" gets you farther than "Prove it". For example, the convo might go this way:
> GG is a campaign to harass women
>> How did you reach that conclusion?
> A lot of people used the hashtag when harassing women. Also, women who spoke out against GG were immediately harassed.
>> What, to you, is the distinction between what someone tweets under #GG and what a goal of GG is?
> GG is basically a twitter movement, so tweets with #GG are the only way to define it.
>> Some people wrote long-format articles about what GG means. Do they get more weight than tweets?
> The volume of tweets is much higher, so those are more representative of the GG population.
>> What is a rule we can use to distinguish between a bad group with a few apologists versus a good group that has a lot of random trolls pile on?

etc etc. Don't make them reactive to things you put forward; make them justify the things they say. Put them in the role of builder rather than destroyer.

Update on Milo, he's decided to file a Subject Access Request so he can find out why Twitter decided to ban him/remove his verification.

So Twitter is fucked.

Fair enough. (The whole punch down, punch up thing. It just seems like as soon as I point it out the position reverses like some sort of end all. "They're oppressed and therefore impervious to logic and/or criticism!") Last time, I pointed out that It creates a the excuse to abuse men because they appear to be in power, I felt like blasphemer in Life of Brian.

"You're only going to make it worse for yourself!"
"Making it worse? How could It be worse? Sexism is Prejudice on Gender! Sexism is Prejudice on Gender!"

I swear this type of feminism is a cult. The supreme invisible evil is the patriarchy and the only savior is the way of the scam artists. Look at the harassed martyrs and feel their plight for a better* future to beat the evils of MAN! Shun the non-believers and indoctrinate all that wish to hear the message!

(Its been a rough few days. I love my sibling but, its a clash.)

Anyway news:

Denton grasps at straws and gets one

Brianna Wu looks to me even more of a scam artist

Maybe it was $arkeesian from the Twitter safety council that banned him.

Never thought I'd be grateful for an EU law being enforced

In other news….

Two weeks after its release, Ghostbusters has yet to make back its production budget

Update on the home front. I found out why they regarded Gamergate as harassment, because it's everywhere. To which I re-explained the origin and cronyism involved to perpetuate it to that bit, which in turn lead to wikigate and a few other things.

But what it boiled down to, the crux of their beef was this: there has been no narrative of an apology from Gamergate to women for threats or violence committed under the hashtag. Gamergate has not been wildly published as officially denouncing the typed attacks against women, or men. Be they tweets or not. Apologies to the women that are being researched and given positions of power or are making livings off their victim status, ill gotten or not. The very invasiveness into their character and constant pressure from the internet of that happening. Everything so far that Gamergate has done in terms of investigation appears to be baseless conspiracy, troll like and non compassionate.

And I can sort of see why. The first google search for Gamergate is still the Wikipedia article, looking up any of the women that are being researched against come off with a shining record, and Gamergate is a hashtag, meaning anyone with a supportable account can do anything with it: From decrying their love of Macrame to Issuing insults. Plus there's incentive to keep Gamergate as a villain in the eyes of publication, because Zombie Boogieman Gamergate generates clicks for yellow journalists.

Basically Gamergate has gone on the assumption that it shouldn't apologize because it doesn't need to. (Honestly I agree with that but…) Fringers that were proven to hijack the hashtag not by popularity but for a single strike to make headlines to push a narrative and/or harass/hurt feelings.

What I'm saying is, I see my sibling's viewpoint and I understand where they're coming from. And as a result I now see issues of how Gamergate is still bought as a narrative as Harassment against women. I don't have a solution and I'm still going to report, but now with this newer insight I'll try to weigh in consideration for "the audience" that anti-gamergate is trying to spin.

TL;DR: The quest of knowledge about people and their actions "in secret" can be taken as an invasion of privacy and be confused for an intent of harassment. Apologies and condemnations of actions that were made using the hashtag should be made in order to correct the narrative that Gamergate is about ethics. Not doing anything directly against the harassment of women that's used by the hashtag is being narrated as perpetuating the harassment. (Insert :/ emoji here)

Other news: Game that allows players to make terrible choices of own volition as a police officer gets negative review, even though it's not set in america or has anything to do with american politics.

@Garde

I think it would help to say that *wink* Gamergate was never about ethics in journalism, it's not like there were such an array of articles saying that the gamer identity was dead (and talking from personal experience, *wink* this totally isn't the reason i have sympathy for GG), or a mailing list encouraging shaddy relationships between journalists called GameJournoPros *wink*

Remind her that Gamergate is *wink* a harassment campaign against sweet cinnamon rolls such as:

• Zoe Quinn, which totally did not make a gag order which was a breach towards US constitution and had to be reppealed by a judge (making precedence for future cases), didn't try ruin a game jam, or a raising fund led by women, didn't harass a furry (among other possible people) probably to the point of suicide, or Candace Owen, was totally intentionally humilliated by Nintendo and didn't apologize
• Brianna Wu, an accomplished game developer, which doesn't have a link regarding her in this very page
• Anita Sarkeesian, which makes quality videos on time and form, and has good use of Kickstarter money (way more than the original goal), and isn't someone's sockpuppet

Those women are flawless, there's no chance in hell they could lie about being harassed *wink*.

Gosh, compilling so many links is a pain. I'm currently short on time, but i hope i gave you some base to expand.

So your saying that Zoe Quinn an individual who runs a game jam that never happened (and took money to do so), runs an anti-hate group that is literally just trolling (also takes money for this) and receives constant protection from the mainstream media should not have been a part of gamergate? Heck her "game" even had a journalist who covered it in the special thanks section. What exactly about this counts as irrelevant and not capable of taking gamer's money?

"In a time when being an enlightened consumer is easier than ever"
citation needed
Because clearly call of duty being the most hated game is not financially successful.
Or battlefront 2016 wasn't financially successful despite being below average.
Or DLC, that everyone and their grandma hates yet makes billions of dollars.
I don't think you understand the role the media plays in this and how they do everything in their power to ensure "enlightened" is not followed by the "word consumer".

Also believing that gamergate is all about zoe quinn… that's just sad man.

I did do that, abilet getting interrupted along the way. But it was put up as "they're still women being harassed. This proof isn't backed up by reliable sources" and "who would lie about being harassed?"

I figured at that point it was better to hear about the "cross to bear" as misdirected as it was, than to continue trying to verify with facts from sources I couldn't quote. My facts got deflected as "I haven't heard about it so it must be false, and I'll get louder because my opponent isn't focusing on the damage against women" They're so far down the echo chamber that all I can do at this point is crack it a bit. They cited the guardian as a reliable source that would never throw away a century of credibility and submit to corruption. I countered with Deepfreeze.it which again was regarded as "unreliable," despite that it sources the corrupted articles published by their origin.

Essentially trying to prove a point to my sibling just boiled down to "But it emotionally scarred these women, and that needs to stop. Gamergate, if it is working is only treating the symptom not the cause."

It became apparent that I couldn't break the logic loop. Gamergate wink is a harassment group wink because of two years of propaganda and getting published in "reliable" wink sources everywhere (MSM). And, because harassment occurred against those having double x chromosomes, regardless of what they did previously It's still undeniably "Misogony." The intent doesn't matter. The fact that any action was taken against women is.

Basically until these "poor harassed women" are brought in for corruption by an all female judge, jury and staff with no ties to the patriarchy and not based on appearance or race. Then they might change their mind.

(That hurt my soul to type. Sarcasm Anyone got Patreon buks to spare? Sarcasm )

But I have a hypothesis: those that have gone into believing the narrative were probably hurt by someone male in the past and are using gamergate as a whipping boy/projection screen. mock perspective Here are these unemployed "lazy" gamers (white, male with neckbeards and fedoras) that aren't contributing to society glued to their entertainment. While they have to do "everything else" such as clean, cook and do chores without any assistance from the non-contributer. end mock perspective They've built up gamer as a culmination of some sort of phantom symbol of everything negative, and by defeating the gamer, claiming it's dead, is some sort of denial/victory. A way of blaming and not confronting their own internal pain. Some want an apology, others want reparations as closure. It's like… Milo's tour when people heckled the comedian "So your daddy didn't hug you enough, boo hoo." I believe was his counter.

I had a point to this, I hope I made it.

TL;DR Gamer = Patriarchy, Patriarchy = Gamer in the mind of the agenda believer.

Anyway more news:

Guardian didn't publish this! So it must not be true!

More proof of brianna wu

Germany has a police button

On the subject of Zoe, don't forget the wizards.

Target some of the least well-equipped to defend themselves people in the first world and target them with a smear campaign for personal fame & profit.

And then there's the rest.

It reminds me of SJWs offering knee-jerk defense of Hillary whenever her neo-conservitive, wall street shilling, bigotry comes back to bite her in the ass.

The kind of person who insist on calling Zoe Quinn a victim is either ignorant or so sociopathically indifferent to human suffering that I feel nauseous.

@Garde

Looks like your sister is a true kool-aid drinker, the kind of person who can't figure out why constant attacks on everything as racist, sexist, & homophobic and mindless white-knighting of every criminal & monster with vagina or a Quran (while simultaneously attacking any woman or Muslim who steps outside their approved opinion box) is probably the single biggest reason that Brexit, Trump, and the twin tides of nationalism & political incorrectness are a thing.

The next 5 years might break her out of her bubble, or she might end up like those idiots who still think Dubya was a great president.

@Jankovic
You sound like those people who make hit pieces on GG that are more full of shit than a sewer.

What do you mean, Dubya was a – HAHAHAHAH, Oh man, I can't finish that sentence with a straight face.

But what happens here is free will. My sibling is free to cherry pick their opinion and deny based on what they believe.

As Tim Michilin once said: "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed,
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." By denying new information and immediately dismissing its credibility due to bias shows that there's a odd middle ground of Pseudo Science. Opinions being touted as facts to preserve a belief.

I don't have anything to add except I feel like Peter Parker arguing with J Jonah Jameson. "I don't care what good it's done! Get me Pictures of Spid- GAMERGATE!"

@Garde
But… but… your sibling has a doctorate… that requires having contributed to science and… and… doing objective research…

@MrKillultra I counter with "Study abroad in Sweden" and they recommended I take up some classes on women's studies to understand their viewpoint. And to clarify their Doctorate is in a "Hard" Science. The problem is that they view the Guardian as a trustworthy source of journalistic integrity (because reputation over recent years) and because there was no forced disclaimer of Jezebel being a part of Gawker industries in bright blinking lights, they bought into that too.

Until the "reliable" sources that are getting picked up by Main stream Media and are fact checked, it's just a fact that a lie is being repeated over and over again for 2 years in multiple publications. Viewed as true. All I can do as a sibling is hear their reasoning and try gain insight as to why. I've given up on trying to prove I'm right and now trying to understand why Gamergate is viewed as wrong.

SWEDEN YES

Terribly sorry, Garde. She also someone who shifts the blame of recent terrorism onto gun-owners, not radical Islam?

And in other news, SJWs set their sites on anime!

Demographics that I'm not part of shouldn't have things they can enjoy!!!

Me right now: