Roasted | GamerGate | Know Your Meme

Guadalupe Rodriguez @GuadalupeRodrg2-5h @lizzyf620 In patriarchy women compete with each other for the crumbs off the patriarch ng. Expand s table That is what you are do liz f @lizzyf620 29:s .@GuadalupeRodrg2 in The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy sustains a head injury and has bizarre hallucinations. That is what you are doing. FAVORITE 12:42 PM -27 Sep 2014 Details Hide conversation Reply t Retweet ★ Favorited More

Share Pin Download More

burned roast gamergate

Origin Entry: GamerGate

Notes:

Anyone got an ice pack?

File type: png

Resolution: (585px x 294px)

File size: 71.4 KB

NOTHING HAS F------ CHANGED 10

Gamergate (harassment campaign) Article Talk From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation). Gamergate or GamerGate (GG)[¹] was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign and a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture. [2][³] It was conducted using the hashtag "#Gamergate" primarily in 2014 and 2015.[1][4][5][6] Beginning in August 2014, Gamergate targeted women in the video game industry, most notably feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and video game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others.[7][8][9][10][11] The harassment campaign included doxing, r--- threats, and death threats.[12][13][14] Gamergate proponents ("Gamergaters") stated that they were a social movement, but lacked well-defined goals, a coherent message, and leaders, making Gamergate difficult to define.[15][16][17] Gamergaters claimed to promote ethics in video games journalism, claimed to be protecting the "gamer" identity, and opposed what they asserted as "political correctness" in video games.[18][19][20][21][22] Read Date Target Gamergate, online harassment campaign in 2014-15 that targeted women in the video game industry. The attacks were attributed largely to white male right-wing gamers who railed against the rise and influence of women and feminism in the industry. Gamergate served as a recruiting tool for the growing alt-right movement and helped spur the online “Pizzagate" conspiracy theory, which soon spawned the wider QAnon conspiracy movement. …………………………....…..……….…..... Attack type Victims Motive View source Inquiry XA 28 languages ✓ Perpetrators Internet trolls, particularly from 4chan, Internet Relay Chat, and 8chan View history Tools ✓ Gamergate August 2014 - 2015 Women in the video game industry See all media Online harassment campaign Zoë Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and others Gamergaters created conspiracy theories falsely accusing Quinn of an unethical relationship with video game journalist Nathan Grayson.[23][24][25] More broadly, they alleged unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics.[17][26] [27] These claims were widely dismissed as trivial, conspiracy theories, baseless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in gaming and journalism.[28] [29][30] Gamergate supporters frequently denied that the harassment took place, falsely claiming it to be manufactured by the victims.[31][32] Misogyny anti-feminism anti- progressivism FBI investigation Gamergate has been described as a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, feminism in video games, social criticism in video games, and the social identity of gamers.[28][33] [34] [35] Many supporters of Gamergate opposed the increasing influence of feminism and so-called "social justice warriors" on video game culture. [2][36] Gamergate led figures both inside and outside the gaming industry to focus on methods of addressing online harassment, ways to minimize harm, and prevent similar events. [37] [38] [39] [40] Gamergate has been viewed as a contributor to the alt-right and other right- wing movements.[21][41] Video game developer Brianna Wu

Jalen Hutchinson Studied Culinary Science at Culinary Institute of America (Graduated 2014). Author has 304 answers and 740.1K answer views. 5y Not that I care that much either way, but it did expose a lot of corrupt game developers and game journalists. X Journalists would make claims of people like Anita Sarkeesian "playing video games all her life" when she openly admitted many times she is not a gamer and only starter recently (when it wasn't for an interview). Various developers trading sex or money for good reviews got exposed, journalists who accepted got exposed. People became a bit more critical about supporting a game just because the developer has a victim complex stating tat their game could have only failed because of sexism, instead of their own poor developing skills. What really sealed the deal was opposition often faking their own harassment. Anita sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn have been caught multiple times screenshotting "harassment" while showing that the harrasser's account name in the login. Or when someone called the police to help Sarkeesian against a "very real threat" she was posting about, only for police to find the harasser's messages were coming from her IP address. I just want honesty from the community, and the lies were mostly exposed by the "dreaded" gamergate. 1.3K views • View upvotes 26

View All 4,079 Images

Load 9 Comments

More:

Self-wreckage

Brianna Wu@Spacekatgal 1h Two male editors being advertised in the system software of the platform they cover. Bet #gamergate's all over this! pic.twitter.com/2XHpSUYpm3 lain Anderson @StandSure4 19m @Spacekatgal That does suggest a potential conflict of interest, thanks for bringing it to our attention #GamerGate Brianna Wu Spacekalgal Follow @StandSure4 To be clear, I don't think this is an issue. I like Colin. But, that you didn't notice betrays your true objectives 4, Reply t구 Retweet * Favorito Moen 4.59 PM-28 Sep 2014 PixelBlock TinyPixelBlock 14m @Spacekatgal@StandSure4 In what way is that a logical statement?

Pin

Breitbart Article By Milo "Nero" Yiannopoulos. Dated September 23, 2014

BIG GOVERNMENT BIG JOURNALISM BIG HOLLYWOOD NATIONAL SECURITY BREITBART TV BREITBART LONDON BREITBART TEXAS BREITBART CALIFORNIA HOW SLOPPY, BIASED VIDEO GAMES REPORTING ALMOST DESTROYED A CEO Print article Send a Tip by MILO YIANNOPOULOS 23 Sep 2014 POST A COMMENT Ben Kuchera, opinion editor at games website Polygon, publicised lurid sexual allegations about the chief executive of Stardock, a 20-year video games industry veteran, in an apparent attempt to do professional damage to someone he perceived to have right-wing politics, two industry sources have told Breitbart London While in his previous job at the Penny Arcade Report, Kuchera, pictured above, who has also worked for Ars Technica, made no effort to validate shocking allegations made against Brad Wardell, founder and CEO of Stardock, which makes video games, PC utilities and other software products. He reblogged details of a harassment claim made against Wardell that were so sexually graphic they set the internet on fire. A harassment case made against Wardell in 2010 was dismissed with prejudice in September 2013, meaning it cannot be brought again. The claimant, Alexandra Miseta, wrote a public letter of apology for her groundless lawsuit, pursuant to the terms of the dismissal. The case was reported by Kotaku under the byline of feminist activist reporter Kate Cox. Cox's story was posted with less than a day's notice given for comment only an hour of that within normal business hours. Tech blogs often give unrealistically short periods to supply comment, usually on stories of meagre significance, to give the illusion of But such serious allegations ought to have given editors pause for thought. In reposting Cox's story, three hours after publication, Kuchera publicised a complaint that detailed horrendously graphic accusations, without contacting Wardell for comment and without including similar detail from Wardell's counter-suit. Kuchera's report on the then-popular Penny Arcade Report led to dozens of libellous news posts, forum threads and blog posts appearing about Wardell elsewhere on the internet. He also gave the piece the headline "Stardock CEO Brad Wardell sued for sexual harassment, with some pretty damning evidence." As any cub reporter will know, allegations in a lawsuit are not evidence of anything: they are merely allegations. Visible in the archive.org version of the story is the claim that Wardell asked Miseta if she enjoyed tasting semen." Wardell was not contacted before these salacious claims were published. The headline was later changed, and the entire piece is now offline. EN KUCHE 9/6/12 AT 3:4O PM THE CUT SOURCE URL PC Gaming Studio Said She Ruined 1, Their Game, But Ony After She Sued The Boss For Sexual SOURCE SITE Kotaku KOTA KU Stardock CEO Brad Wardell sued for sexual harassment, with some heavy allegations Originally said "Damning evidence According to Wardell, death threats were forthcoming after Kuchera's actions because his reblogging caused Kotaku's article to leap to the top of search engine rankings. Regular readers will be struck by the irony of Kuchera's responsibility for this mess: Kuchera was seen in private emails leaked to Breitbart London last week demanding that The Escapist, a rival website, take down forum posts that discussed sexual allegations about Zoe Quinn, a developer whose colourful private life has been the subject of widespread reporting in recent weeks. He seems to have had no similar complaints about the forum posts he triggered about Wardell, some of which remain online. Kuchera stands accused of hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to reporting sexual claims about men versus women. Quinn herself complained when Stardock acquired the rights to Star Control, saying the game had gone to "bad people." Wardell told Breitbart London his son was bullied at school and directions to his house were posted on the internet, including Google Maps images. "I received an email from someone who described my house in sufficient detail to concern me and promised to kill me, r--- my wife and sodomize my son," Wardell told Breitbart on Monday. "My Wikipedia page was defaced with people putting up that my sons were gay. People today still refer to the allegations in themselves as proof. Every time we're working with a new business partner who does due diligence, this issue comes back up this happens 2 or 3 times per month because a Kotaku article about the torrid drama still shows up on the front page of Google results on me. Contacted by Breitbart London on 20 September, Ben Kuchera has since failed to respond to questions about his reporting practices. He has also declined to comment on whether his needling of Wardell occurred because Wardell is known to have conservative opinions, in an industry where liberal bloggers and Left-wing ideology is the norm. Kuchera has a controversial reputation in the video game industry himself. Readers regard his far-Left political leanings to be distracting and he is well known for getting into regular arguments on social networking sites with other reporters and with ordinary gamers. He is accused of abruptly terminating arrangements for an interview with transgender gamer and developer Devi Ever, who says that Kuchera was anxious to talk to him until he discovered that she supported the #GamerGate movement, which has for the last month been fighting for greater transparency and ethics in game journalism. And in early 2013, Kuchera wrongly tweeted allegations that Forbes blogger Erik Kain had endorsed video game piracy. He continued to pursue Kain, eventually becoming the subject of widespread ridicule on satirical news websites and in user forums.

Pin

If you're falling for bait, at least fall for high quality bait.

BAIT 102: LOW-QUALITY BAIT TFYC doesn't care about women > There's no censorship going on >Let's talk about Literally Who/Literally Who 2 >Games need to include people of all kinds and you're Something-ist if you don't agree >News says you're misogynists so you must be >Internalized misogyny/racism/homophobia > "Gamers are dead" is fine because it's opinion > People still opposing GG even after tons of explanation >But what about me? Look at me! >OMG harassment! >Hypocrites justitying hypocrisy USE'IGNORE', IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE

Pin

How to review a game properly

The Purpose Of A Game Review and How To Write One With Minimal Subjectivity In the continuing consumer revolt that is #gamergate, more than once has the subject of game reviews come up. Qualms are usually focused around how they are frequently slanted, skewed, heavily biased, or just not informative. So I've decided to sit down and tell you how to go about crafting a quality review Why do we write reviews? Any review boiled down into its basic form is written in order to help the reader (YOUR customer) make an informed decision about what they MIGHT purchase, or otherwise utilize. The fact of the matter is this; game journalism and game reviews are a customer oriented business. Your readers are your customers, except rather than paying you upfront with cash (unless you're still subscribing to a magazine), they're paying you with clicks of your articles. Nevertheless your ultimate job is to serve your customer and serve them well. Assume that every customer has a limited entertainment budget; your job is to make sure that they are getting the best value for their dollar Over the past week I've seen more than a few people make the mostly false claim that a review can't be objective in its nature. Not only do I disagree with that, I tend to make it a point in the reviews that I write to avoid unnecessarily interjecting my opinion into it as much as reasonably possible. A good written review is more or less an informative essay that is flavored with your unique personality with a sprinkling of your personal interpretation. To build the structure of a good review, I go back to the 4E's: Educate, Explain, Elaborate, Emphasize. Let's go ahead and take a look at each of those in detail. Educate: Explain to the customer WHAT they are buying Follow the What, Who, When, Where (the 4 W's) method. WHAT game are you reviewing? WHO developed and published it? WHEN did it, or does it, release? WHERE (which platforms) did it, or will it, release? Explain After you've covered the basic facts sheet, in this section of the review is where you talk about exactly what the game is. What do you do in the game? What is the purpose of it? Are there additional under explained or not explained features (not shown on the box or in pre-release material)? How much entertainment time should the average customer get out of this title? What genre is it? How much time did you spend with the product? There are more questions to be asked depending on the product, but this should give you the general idea of what this section is about Elaborate: In this section is where you go into further necessary detail on features in the game that are big enough topics to not easily fit into basic explanation. What is the big hook for the game that sets it apart from others of its genre? Does the game do something that no one else has done? This is its own section because you may need to go into complex detail to explain mechanic in-depth, unique title features, etc. Emphasize: In this section of the review is where you should put more detail on quality of life and quality of build. Ifit's a current gen title with achievements (such as Steam Achievements, Xbox Achievements, PlayStation Trophies, etc) you would talk about them here. Does the game run at industry standard resolutions? Are there additional microtransactions? Will DLC be available? Are there big, notable issues such as bugs, screen-tearing, poor performance, crashes, so on and so forth? You will often hear people say "How are the graphics?" Interpretation of artistic STYLE is subjective; QUALITY of work isn't as much as you'd think. Are the textures washed out and muddy? Is it difficult to see properly? Are there clear and obvious typos? Is the audio for the game clear and free of background noise (yes, this kind of stuf DOES happen)? You should talk about all of these things here. Closin The final portion of your review should talk about your own experience with the itle and how you enjoyed it, if at all. THIS is where the subjectivity of rour review comes into play, as opposed to the other sections. Every person is unique and will consume the content differently. You can talk about how much fin that you had, or whether your disliked the experience overall. What were your impressions? What did you think of the art style and direction? How does it compare to other games of its genre, in your view? Does it do things worse than its competitors or better in our view? How did you enjoy the story, if applicable? Again, there is plenty of space here for you to show the reader YOUR interpretation of the facts presented in the majority of the product review. I typically avoid providing scores on my reviews. The reason being that no one can seem to actually agree on WHAT scale to use. People use stars, yes no, scale of 1 to 5 and scale of 1 to 1o, usually. My general problem with these scoring systems is that the meaning of them can vary wildly depending on who is looking at it. A 3 star review is 'supposed' to be average, but to many people it's considered mediocre and not worth your time. Instead, I say who is likely to purchase the title and who is likely to avoid the title. If, for example, the game falls into the 'brawler genre and you didn't have a bad experience with it, you can safely say that "Fans of brawlers will probably enjoy this title." This achieves two final goals: It defines who the intended audience of the title was, and who would do better to avoid it altogether Now bear in mind, this isn't necessarily a blocked-out template for every review; it's here to explain to you WHAT should be talked about in a review why you're talking about it, and how to do so well. Your job, as a reviewer, isn't to tell the customer what to buy. Your job is to INFORM the customer of what they COULD buy, should they be inclined to. You are their eyes and ears in places that they cannot venture, you are there to provide them with the data that they could not easily glean on their own. Happy reviewing Oliver Campbell Follow author Share

Pin

One Angry Gamer Article By William "Billy D" Usher. Dated September 27, 2014

#GAMERGATE: KOTAKU. NERD-SHAMING AND BEN KUCHERA piee over on thor tine'spoinful The right is dorLandfuarterrors. you e s oo damned short for the concest of aulty o Penny Acace that circalated early on topet the I SUPPORT #GAMERGATE CONDEMN SU.PPORT WOMEN AM AGAINST ASED AND CORRUPT GAME JOURNALISM uily incomect but no by the people whoare What happesed during this

Pin

One Angry Gamer Article By William "Billy D" Usher. Dated September 27, 2014

Pin

Image #838,825

ISTE DO NOT QUESTION

Pin

The Purpose Of A Game Review And How To Write One With Minimal Subjectivity By Oliver Campbell

ver Capbell onSep25 The Purpose Of A Game Review and How To Write One With Minimal Subjectivity In the continuing consum er revolt that is #gamergate, more than once has the subject of game reviews come up. Qualms are usually focused around how they are frequently slanted, skewed, heavily biased, or just not informative. So I've decided to sit down and tell you how to go about crafting il quality review. Why do we write reviews? Any review boiled down into its basic form is written in order to help the reader (YOUR customer) make an informed decision about what they MIGHT purchase, or otherwise utilize. The fact of the matter is this; game journalism and game reviews are a customer oriented business. Your readers are your customers, except rather than paying you upfront with cash (unless you're still subscribing to a magazine) they're paying you with clicks of your articles. Nevertheless, your ultimate job is to serve your customer and serve them well. Assume that every customer has a limited entertainment budget: your job is to make sure that they are getting the best value for their dollar Over the past week I've seen more than a few people make the mostly false claim that a review can't be objective in its nature. Not only do I disagree with that, I tend to make it a point in the reviews that I write to avoid unnecessarily interjecting my opinion into it as much as reasonably possible. A good written review is more or less an informative essay that is flavored with your unique personality with a sprinkling of your personal interpretation. To build the structure of a good review, I go back to the 4E's: Educate, Explain, Elaborate, Emphasize. Let's go ahead and take a look at each of those in detail. Educate Explain to the customer WHAT they are buying. Follow the What, Who, When, Where (the 4 W's) method. WHAT game are yow reviewing? WHO developed and published it? WHEN did it,or does it,ese WHEREwhich platforms) did it, or will it, release Explain After you've covered the basic fucts sheet, in this section of the review is where yo talk about emctly what the game is, What do you do in the game? What is the purpose of it? Are there aaditional under explained or not explained features (not shown on the box or in pre-release material)? How euch entertainment time should the average customer get out of this tirle? What genre is it? How much time did you spend with the product? There are more questions to be asked depending on the product, but this shod give you the general idea of what this section is about. Elaborate In this section is where you go into further necessary detail on featares in the game that are big enongh topics to not eusily fit into basic explanation. What is the big hook for the game that sets it apart from others of its genre? Does the game do something that no one else has done? This is its own section becanse yon may need to go into complex detafl to explain a mechanic in-depth, meique title features, ete In this section of the review is where you shouid put more dctail on quality oflife and quality of build. If it's a eent gen title with achievements (such as Steam Achievements, Xbox Achievements, PlayStation Trophies, etc) you wonld taik about them here. Does the game run at industry standard resolutions? Are there additional microtnansactions Will DLC be availabie? Are there big, notable issues such as bugs, screen-tearing, poor performance,cnashes, so on and so fortk? You will often hear people say "How are the graphics? Interpretation of artistic STYLE is suhjective QUALITY ofwork it as much as you'd think. Are the textures wushed out and muddy? Is it difieralt to see properiy? Are there clear and obvions typos? Is the audio for the game clear and free of baciground noise es, this kind of stuf DOES happen)? You should talk abot all ofthese things here Closing The final portion of your review should talk about your own eoperience with the titie and how you enjoyed it, ifat al. THIS is wbere the subjectivity of your review comes into play, as opposed to the other sections. Every person consume the content differently. Yow can talk about how much ficn that you had or whether your disliked the eoxperience overall. What were your impressions? What did you think of the art style and direction? How does it compare to other games of its genre, in your view? Does it do things worse than its competitors or better in your view? How did you enjoy the story, if applicable? Again, there is plenty of space here for you to show the reader YOUR interpretation of the facts preseuted in the majority af the product review is sunique and wil I typically avoid providing scores on my reviews. The reason being that no one can seem to actually agree on WHAT scale to use. People use stars, yes no, scale of to s and scale of i to o, usually. My general problem with these scoring systems is that the meanin名of them can vary wildly depending on who is looking at it. A 3 star review is 'supposed' to be average, but to many people it's considered mediocre and not worth your time. Instead, I say who is likely to purchase the title and who is likely to avoid the title. If, for example, the game falls into the 'brawler genre and you didn't have a bad experience with it, you can safely say that "Fans of brawlers will probably enjoy this title." This achieves two final goals: It defines who the intended audience of the title was, and who would do better to avoid it altogether. Now bear in mind, this isn't necessarily a blocked-out template for every review, it's here to explain to you WHAT should be talked about in review, why you're talking about it, and how to do so well. Your job, as a reviewer isn't to tell the customer what to buy. Your job is to INFORM the customer of what they COULD buy, should they be inclined to. You are their eyes and ears in places that they cannot venture, you are there to provide them with the data that they could not easily glean on their own. Happy reviewing. Oliver Campbell nter ema Responses Inspired to write your own story? TRAIN PEOPLE The paradoxes of organization of PEORE of agity

Pin

Tyrion Lannister

When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say Tyrion Lannister Game of Thrones Frank Decapio @FrankDecapio 36m With regards to the anti-#GamerGate censorship pic.twitter.com/J5NLMKBPqx Reply t3 Retweet * Favorite

Pin

Image #838,795

Do you feel like GG is slowly leaning to simply promoting figureheads (such as yourself no offence) while backing off from actually having their own voices in the debate? Listen I understand the arguments from both sides in reference to some sort of leadership but here is thee reality 1) Leadership can work if you have a great leader but only if you have a great leader. They have to be on point at all times, they have to be eloquent, they have to be a great orator, a great organizer, and a host of other things. If they fail at any of these they kill what they try to promote. The greatest danger to any cause is the person who promotes it most. They become a target and their foibles and faults become those of the group they represent. 2) Groups have fallen apart without good leadership. Look at OWS, look at Chanology. You either have a complete absence of someone in charge or those that gain power, through their own character faults, hurt those they try and lead 3) GamerGate or whatever you want to refer to it as is different though. It's not a real world protest, it requires no physical action. You have no marches to organize, no protests to gather, no parks to camp in. It works as a decentralized consumer movement because it doesn't require the logistical support that a real world movement would 4) People are falling for a very simple ploy that has killed a lot of good ideas in the past. The idea is that to win the day they need to appeal to the middle/moderates/independents/uniformed and to do so they need structure and a refined message. This is false. What happens is that you go so far to the middle from your original position to sway those residing there that you are no longer distinguishable from those you are trying to convince; your message becomes diluted and loses meaning People are being suckered into fighting this on the terms the other side dictates, Behave a certain way, do PR a certain way, promote a message a certain way. But you see the other side is losing so why adopt thei tactics? People should continue to do what they think works, whoever wants to voice an opinion let them and if it has merit it will be adopted and if it does not it will be ignored. There are no leaders, simply envoys carrying the message of the whole about 4 hours ago 1 person likes this

Pin

Image #838,794

GamerGate Part 1: The Path We've Taken [InternetAristocrat] o en r 、 submitted 8 hours ago by give-me-sugar [H] [N] 280 comments share save hide give gold report nsfw flair reports: 1 spam remove reapprove ignore reports (youtu.be 540 Gamerate - user reports: 3: spam 1: contributing part of ongoing harassment and doxxing campaign 1: Ban this garbage 1: vote manipulation

Pin

Give it up for the neutral internet encyclopedia, everybody!

Nobody cares what the pro-GG crowd (which to be honest if one is saying they are po GG" then they are in effect pro sexual harassment thinks or feels in this situation their point-of-view is decidedly fringe. The sooner you and a few others get over the misunderstanding that "pro-GG" is an equal-weight opinion alongside what this is actually about, the better. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Connecting... (cur) difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m-minor edit, → section edit, ← (newest I oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (201501 100 | 250 1500) automatic edit summary Compare selected revisions cur prev) ⓔ 1948, 28 September 2014 Cuchu an talk contribs) m (49824 bytes) (0 Changed protection ever f Gamerga e controversy Edi romy administrators] (expires 19:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC) [Move Allow only administrators] (expires 19:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)) cur prev . ○ 1946, 28 September 2014 Cuchullan talk contribs) m 49,824 bytes) (0 Changed protection level of Game gate controversy: Edit warring content dispute ([Edit Allow only administrators] (expires 18:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)) Move Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (cur I prev) O 19:27,28 September 2014 Tar (talk I contribs) .(49,824 bytes) (1,076) (Undid revision 627446884 by Masem (talk) -not a chance that any of that private mailing list nuttery is going to be her,e in any form) . (cur I prev) 18:54, 28 September 2014 Masem (talk | contribs) .(50,900 bytes) (+1,076). . (Undid revision 627444078 by TheRedPenorDoom (talk) this is actually reasonable to include (it's not fringe), but it needs to be written to be a separate concept as I have done) . (cur | prev) O O 18:30, 28 September 2014 TheRedPenofDoom (talk | contribs) . (49,824 bytes) (-984). (Undid revision 627443919 by Bosstopher (talk) undue weight to fringe conspiracy theorist) (cur | prev) O O 18:29, 28 September 2014 Bosstopher (talk | contribs) (50,808 bytes) (+984) (Undid revision 627441233 by NorthBy SouthBaranof (talk) You seem to have reverted based off of a misreading of the sources used. Please look at the Orland source . (cur | prev) O O 18:06, 28 September 2014 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs). (49,824 bytes) (-984) (We don't really care what someone from Breitbart said. We just don't) (cur I prev)O 17:55, 28 September 2014 Diego Moya (talk | contribs) m (50,808 bytes) (+984). (Reverted edits by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) to last version by Diego Moya) (Tag: HHVM) (cur | . (cur r(cur prev) O 17:55, 28 September 2014 prev)。 17:48. 28 September 2014 prev) O O 17:47 28 September 2014 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) (49,824 bytes) (-984) (Breitbart garbage has no place in this article) Diego Moya (talk contribs) m (50808 bytes) (+3) ( Soc a media campagn and backlash clam (Tag: HHV Diego Moya (talk contribs) (50,805 bytes) (+62) (+Social media campaign and backlash this is at Forbes too Tag:

Pin

Know Your Meme

Like Page 1.8M likes