Gamergate

[Garahs]

Making this thread to divert discussion from the gendered nouns thread. Content to come.

Discussion to come so far: Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

Apologies for not quoting everything, but I'd rather just do it the simple way.

According to Anita Sarkeesian's wikipedia page, she merely talked about sexism in videogames, while Jack Thompson engaged in lawsuits and political campaigns to have videogames banned.

One of these things is not like the other.

Click to shrink...

I'm not going to hypothesize on why Anita isn't following the exact path Jack took. However, it may be important to note that Jack was a lawyer before being disbarred while Anita (to my knowledge) has not studied law.

Anita merely states that video games make men "unknowingly sexist towards women".

 

[powerofvoid]

I'm not going to hypothesize on why Anita isn't following the exact path Jack took. However, it may be important to note that Jack was a lawyer before being disbarred while Anita (to my knowledge) has not studied law.

Anita merely states that video games make men "unknowingly sexist towards women".

Click to shrink...

My point is, how are they even remotely comparable, other than offending the "in-group" of the hardcore-videogame-fan tribe?

 

[Garahs]

My point is, how are they even remotely comparable, other than offending the "in-group" of the hardcore-videogame-fan tribe?

Click to shrink...

Because whether through law or enacting self censorship, they both seek the same end, curtailing creativity in video games.

 

[Cambrian]

Because whether through law or enacting self censorship, they both seek the same end, curtailing creativity in video games.

Click to shrink...

Going off of just whats in this thread:

I dont see how stating an opinion curtails creativity in video games.

The Jack guy sounds like a jerk and Im glad he got disbarred. The Anita lady just seems to be expressing her opinion though.

 

[powerofvoid]

Because whether through law or enacting self censorship, they both seek the same end, curtailing creativity in video games.

Click to shrink...

Saying "X is bad" is the same as attempting to ban X? and attempting to ban X is the same as attempting to ban Y?

If this is the level of argument that goes on in "Gamergate" threads, I can see why SV banned the whole topic.

 

[1986ctcel]

Saying "X is bad" is the same as attempting to ban X? and attempting to ban X is the same as attempting to ban Y?

If this is the level of argument that goes on in "Gamergate" threads, I can see why SV banned the whole topic.

Click to shrink...

That and the whole defamation/posting screenshots of random twitter posts on the internet without context.

And with that I implore everyone not to do this, the SB threads are toxic circlejerk shitholes full of stuff that could be considered criminal defamation and the threads on SV were toxic and full of aggression and useless shouting and some bad faith debating with quite a few things that could also be considered defamation DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE HERE, lets just go back to talking about porn and not mention the topic of GG or anything to do with it again before its too late.

 

[powerofvoid]

And with that I implore everyone not to do this, the SB threads are toxic circlejerk shitholes full of stuff that could be considered criminal defamation and the threads on SV were toxic and full of aggression and useless shouting and some bad faith debating with quite a few things that could also be considered defamation DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE HERE, lets just go back to talking about porn and not mention the topic of GG or anything to do with it again before its too late.

Click to shrink...

Have we argued too greedily and too deep? Are we in danger of awakening a buried god of fire and iron?

 

[1986ctcel]

Have we argued too greedily and too deep? Are we in danger of awakening a buried god of fire and iron?

Click to shrink...

Never fear IT SHALL NOT PASS! Well more that this is probably going to become a seriously toxic thread with lots of aggressive arguing and no one side getting convinced by the other if it doesn't eventually become a circlejerk of one side and having seen what happened to every damn GamerGate/Anita thread on SV (along with a glance at the SB one) I just really don't want a repeat

 

[Garahs]

Saying "X is bad" is the same as attempting to ban X? and attempting to ban X is the same as attempting to ban Y?

Click to shrink...

Are you aware it's working? There's already one game that won't be getting an American release due to the SJW hysteria, and another game has been censored.

Also, please don't misquote me. I said Anita is following the same path Jack did, making up facts to support her claims with no basis in reality.

 

[1986ctcel]

Are you aware it's working? There's already one game that won't be getting an American release due to the SJW hysteria, and another game has been censored.

Also, please don't misquote me. I said Anita is following the same path Jack did, making up facts to support her claims with no basis in reality.

Click to shrink...

No there is one game that won't be getting an american release because the company DON'T THINK ITS GOING TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE IT WORTH THE COST, people keep on REPEATING that shit even though Tecmo have said that that twitter post or what ever it was was a LIE.

You can still get the game in english if you want it through play-asia or whatever the damn website is and probably cheaper than if it had been released and Tecmo gets the sales from the hardcore fans without having to bother with an expensive marketing campaign or the costs of printing and shipping huge amounts of physical disks to all the game stores in the US that may not even end up being fully sold. (which is pretty much the reason WHY digital distribution is cheaper than Physical).

 

[DoggySoup]

Gamergate: Whoever wins; games lose.

My point is, how are they even remotely comparable, other than offending the "in-group" of the hardcore-videogame-fan tribe?

Click to shrink...

I honestly wouldn't trust Wikipedia on anything gamergate. Wikipedia has had serious issues with politically biased editing for a long time, and Gamergate (+ GG relate articles like Anita Sarky, Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn and more) was so bad that it's a permanent black stain on the administration areas.

Just google Ryulong.

Saying "X is bad" is the same as attempting to ban X? and attempting to ban X is the same as attempting to ban Y?

Click to shrink...

Yes and no. The argument is actually one of equivocation, and pretty blurry.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/comments/3tgi4t/what_does_anita_mean_by_reinforce/

The above link is a nice discussion from people with all sorts of views about it, and conclusions range from

It's not her, but some of her fans deliberately misinterpreting her.​

to

She's making a tacit statement that X should be removed, but due to how she's playing with words a situation has raised so that when anyone criticises her unspoken conclusion people jump to point out that she never really said "X must be removed because it causes Y" she just said "X causes Y and Y is the source of this massive list of serious problems and somebody must do something to stop Y from happening". Essentially people are deliberately playing with words for point scoring.​

No but seriously, don't get involved with it. It's shitty people taking sides and dragging politics into it for the sake of point scoring childishness.

 

[Master of Squirrel-fu]

Honestly, in terms of effecting the gaming industry Anti-gamergate and SJWs pretty much failed. There hasn't been a major long lasting impact from them besides creating another flamewar brewing topic that gamers will bitch with each other over. Most of what they effected was the public opinion by reinforcing many negative stereotypes about gamers in the media, and created a self perpetuating machine of creating drama to earn money or push their agenda. The thing is what it caused, while not effecting games, had worse effects on everything else as a whole as the incident simply pushed them into the spotlight. Odds are they aren't going to do much to gaming, because the industry their trying to change their constantly mocking and trying to vilify. Sadly what they can effect is more important, namely the public opinion of the neutral masses. Media outlets tend to side with them too to push this. This had led to things like men being sued to the point of destitution for disagreeing with an SJW online, a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a top mind in his field being black barred and stripped of his honors over an off collar joke told in private, the first man to land a space craft on a FUCKING MOVING STELAR BODY being fired because he wore the wrong shirt, and bullshit student protests to push their political agenda in schools of higher learning.

They may not have effected games, but by god what they can do is much worse...

 

[searcher8]

No there is one game that won't be getting an american release because the company DON'T THINK ITS GOING TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE IT WORTH THE COST, people keep on REPEATING that shit even though Tecmo have said that that twitter post or what ever it was was a LIE.

You can still get the game in english if you want it through play-asia or whatever the damn website is and probably cheaper than if it had been released and Tecmo gets the sales from the hardcore fans without having to bother with an expensive marketing campaign or the costs of printing and shipping huge amounts of physical disks to all the game stores in the US that may not even end up being fully sold. (which is pretty much the reason WHY digital distribution is cheaper than Physical).

Click to shrink...

This argument makes no sense whatsoever however, considering that this is the same series that has historically done better in the US than it has in Japan. If they thought it would make enough money in Japan to justify making the game in the first place, then there is no reason whatsoever for them to believe that it would not be able to make enough money in the US to justify an american release, especially since that would cost significantly less money than making the game initially would.

 

[1986ctcel]

This argument makes no sense whatsoever however, considering that this is the same series that has historically done better in the US than it has in Japan. If they thought it would make enough money in Japan to justify making the game in the first place, then there is no reason whatsoever for them to believe that it would not be able to make enough money in the US to justify an american release, especially since that would cost significantly less money than making the game initially would.

Click to shrink...

Japan is only a couple of hundred miles of land with cities clustered close to each other, the US is something like 3000 miles of land and requiring them to print and ship discs to not just a few cities but EVERYWHERE. And you do realize that just because it EARNS more money in America than in Japan doesn't mean that the percentage of Americans who buy it matches or exceeds the percentage of Japanese who buy it.

Or to give an example, people keep on whining about how Tumblr is full of "Ess Jay DOUBLE-Us" except they make up only a small of the site because Tumblr has around a few million users.

actually there's a post on SV that explains that Tumblr thing better than me

You shouldn't. The site's nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be, and has a lot more diversity in opinion than one might expect (far more than our sister site, in the very least). Most people just don't notice it because either:
A) The way content displayed on your dash is (predominantly) composed of people you're following, and odds are high that if you're following someone there's overlap in the ways you think and / or what you're interested in (meaning its community looks slightly more monolithic than it is)
or
B) Because they're being purposefully disingenuous / cherry-picking pages and citing tumblr because they literally had no arguments left besides "Someone said something stupid on the internet" and thus had to turn to a site with several million blogs to prop up their argument (in other words, they're so desperate they're a step away from quoting YouTube comments). There's MRAs, Feminists, #GGers, SJWs, Racists, Transhumanists, Furries, Channers, and a shitton of other groups / demographics on the site (and in very large quantities at that).

Just to get an idea of the scale on tumblr: If a post on SB / SV has about 150 Likes, it has approximately 5-10% of its active user base saying "I like this post!", which is a fairly large number considering it's hard to even get 5-10% of the forums' user bases to look at a single topic or post. Contrastingly, if a post on tumblr has over two hundred thousand notes, it doesn't even account for 1% of active users. Furthermore, the majority of those notes could be attached to someone's reblog comments which may have changed the entire context. If someone points at a single "RABLE GARBLE" post of someone being a nutter on tumblr with more notes than SB / SV have active members, it's quite literally comparable to if someone on SB / SV pointed to a user's comment with 0 to 1 likes and using that to say something like "SB is full of warmongers who want to turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot" or "SV is made up of die-hard Tea Partiers who want Trump for president".

tl;dr If someone rants at you about "duh tumbles" to prove their point you can most probably ignore their argument as it's an only marginally more credible argument than "So I heard this guy rambling in Walmart the other day and - you'll have to take my word on this - they…"

Click to shrink...

basically just because it makes more money doesn't mean its ACTUALLY more successful because there's a HELL of a lot more people in America than in Japan.

 

[RedStarMini]

Also most feminists/sjws who are active in the gaming scene DO complain about how Anita lies in her videos and how she is not a good face for video game feminism

 

[TehChron]

My point is, how are they even remotely comparable, other than offending the "in-group" of the hardcore-videogame-fan tribe?

Click to shrink...

Because Anita is going around helping craft legislation

She also served as a guest speaker to the UN committee working on internet censorship

So from a purely legal sense, she's far more active than Jack Thompson ever was

 

[TehChron]

Or to give an example, people keep on whining about how Tumblr is full of "Ess Jay DOUBLE-Us" except they make up only a small of the site because Tumblr has around a few million users.

Click to shrink...

But they're still the ones who go around ruining the lives of people who disagree with them

Being racist isn't a crime, but by the standards of those few percentage points of tumblrites it should be

And they do everything they can to lynch people they think the law won't do an adequate job of punishing to their satisfaction.

 

[powerofvoid]

Because Anita is going around helping craft legislation

She also served as a guest speaker to the UN committee working on internet censorship

So from a purely legal sense, she's far more active than Jack Thompson ever was

Click to shrink...

1. Please provide a source with some information on what sort of legislation she is actually advocating
2. You still have not yet established that X = Y to declare that defending Sarkeesian but not Thompson is hypocritical, even if she is trying to have something banned.

 

[TehChron]

1. Please provide a source with some information on what sort of legislation she is actually advocating
2. You still have not yet established that X = Y to declare that defending Sarkeesian but not Thompson is hypocritical, even if she is trying to have something banned.

Click to shrink...

1. No, feel free to dismiss it as either anecdotal or entirely made up, because while what I'm about to reference is self-evident, it clearly doesn't meet your implied definition
2. This isn't a debate, this is pointing out something easily observable

You're misunderstanding something here, I'm not making an argument. I'm pointing out that Sarkessian is just as big a malcontent, if not moreso, than Jack Thompson. That you seem to be treating this as some kind of debate is cute, but I don't get into arguments with white knights.

The latter term referring to those who refer to perceived insults against whatever their pet cause is with naked hostility whenever possible.

Sarkeesian's rabble rousing, and knowingly doing so, isn't something that is up for debate. She's very obviously doing it, because she very obviously wants to. She created a problem where none existed for the sake of raising her own profile. That problem was "female representation in the video game industry". It's a lot like modern arguments about how affirmative action "doesn't go far enough", she's creating artificial goalposts of what defines "proper" representation without actually going into details about it, while looking for justifications to complain about it's lack or even go into the actual reasons for said perceived lack.

Just like someone like Jack Thompson, who didn't need empirical evidence because he was already so sure of the truth of the matter regarding video game violence.

Now, this video is the first result when I googled, so the slant is the result of laziness, rather than me taking the time to find an unbiased source. Needless to say, the burden of proof was that I establish that it happened, correct?



And I have now satisfied that burden. But for the sake of humoring you.

A link to the Polygon article, one of the most positive slants possible

"The online social media sites and the places in which we are engaging really need to step up and change the way that their systems operate," Sarkeesian said during the panel discussion. "It's not enough that [social media sites] simply put band-aids on the problem areas. They need to completely reimagine what their systems look like in order to build sites that actively deter online harassment."
This was echoed in a statement Sarkeesian gave to Polygon over email, regarding her participation in the discussion on combatting cyber violence. "We need to create an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation or violence," she told us.
Finally, the group aims to develop laws and other governance to "enforce compliance and punitive consequences for perpetrators."

Click to shrink...

it's my sincere hope that you realize that Sarkeesian is attempting to work with these guys to actively develop online censoring laws using "harassment" as an excuse, and that you realize that regardless of your personal stance regarding Gamergate, that Sarkeesia and Quinn are working to encourage such a thing is...wrong.

On a fundamental level.

 

[powerofvoid]

First, after much googling, I found a link to a video of what happened at the UN: http://webtv.un.org/watch/launch-of-the-broadband-working-group-on-gender-report/4506718502001 (If you want to hop to the "good part", go to about 1:20:00)

I'm still watching the video.

----- ----- ----- -----

Now, the context in which my argument was formed: TanaNari made an argument, that, at least to my perception, went something like this:

1. Jack Thompson did something bad
2. Anita Sarkeesian did something bad
3. These bad things are basically the same
4. Jack Thompson was harassed
5. Anita Sarkeesian was harassed
6. The nature and content of the harassment was basically the same
7. Therefore the only difference between the two situations was that Anita is a self-described feminist and Jack Thompson isn't
8. Feminists defended Anita Sarkeesian but not Jack Thompson
9. This defense happened after #3 should have become obvious
10. Therefore, feminists defend people based solely on in-group vs out-group status
11. Therefore, feminists are bad people

The points I am suspicious of are:

• #3: "These bad things are basically the same"
• #6: "The nature and content of the harassment was basically the same"

I find #3 suspicious because I had only heard of Anita complaining about things in videogames and other media, not actually attempting to have videogames themselves banned.

I find #6 suspicious because, among other things, I think it's very unlikely that the attacks on Jack Thompson would have involved arguments to the effect of "feminism is bad", just for a quick start.

EDIT:

"The online social media sites and the places in which we are engaging really need to step up and change the way that their systems operate," Sarkeesian said during the panel discussion. "It's not enough that [social media sites] simply put band-aids on the problem areas. They need to completely reimagine what their systems look like in order to build sites that actively deter online harassment."
This was echoed in a statement Sarkeesian gave to Polygon over email, regarding her participation in the discussion on combatting cyber violence. "We need to create an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation or violence," she told us.
Finally, the group aims to develop laws and other governance to "enforce compliance and punitive consequences for perpetrators."

Click to shrink...

it's my sincere hope that you realize that Sarkeesian is attempting to work with these guys to actively develop online censoring laws using "harassment" as an excuse, and that you realize that regardless of your personal stance regarding Gamergate, that Sarkeesia and Quinn are working to encourage such a thing is...wrong.

On a fundamental level.

Click to shrink...

While I am not yet fully informed on the context of the statement, "people who threaten murder online should be punished by the law," seems both completely reasonable and a plausible interpretation of the quoted passage.

EDIT 2: I guess it does (assuming it's true, which I'm not going to challenge at the moment, although I've decided to put off watching the UN video until tomorrow), establish advocacy of banning something, but if that's all, that something isn't videogames, making the Jack Thompson comparison quite misleading.

 

[TehChron]

It's only misleading in a vacuum

Which I am most assuredly not treating this situation as. While the specifics differ, the larger strokes, using self-declared issues coming from video games and the culture around them to justify legislation limiting free speech, are still the same and just as dangerous.

Moreso, given that Sarkeesian is not only not a lawyer that can be disbarred for engaging in some of her more questionable practices, but also in the fact that she's operating on a much larger scale, in a much more naked manner, is using an even more effective straw man, and finally is doing a far better job of it than Thompson ever did.

 

[RedStarMini]

But they're still the ones who go around ruining the lives of people who disagree with them

Being racist isn't a crime, but by the standards of those few percentage points of tumblrites it should be

And they do everything they can to lynch people they think the law won't do an adequate job of punishing to their satisfaction.

Click to shrink...

...Are you seriously arguing that people being angry on a blogging site about someone being openly racist is bad?

 

[TehChron]

...Are you seriously arguing that people being angry on a blogging site about someone being openly racist is bad?

Click to shrink...

No, I'm saying going on to his jobs facebook page and getting him fired before accusing said job of promoting racism for hiring him in the first place is horrific and reeks of people having a fascism boner

Lets not confuse the issue.

 

[RedStarMini]

No, I'm saying going on to his jobs facebook page and getting him fired before accusing said job of promoting racism for hiring him in the first place is horrific and reeks of people having a fascism boner

Lets not confuse the issue.

Click to shrink...

If you are racist and you say it on a public platform like facebook you deserve to get fired for being an idiot. Like jesus fucking christ that is the worst publicity to give your place of work. doxxing is bad yeah but if you just put it out there you're a fucking idiot

 

[TehChron]

If you are racist and you say it on a public platform like facebook you deserve to get fired for being an idiot. Like jesus fucking christ that is the worst publicity to give your place of work. doxxing is bad yeah but if you just put it out there you're a fucking idiot

Click to shrink...

No, you honestly don't deserve to get fired, especially if you do it on the street in a manner completely unconnected to your job.

Just like you don't deserve to get fired for being an SJW, just like you don't deserve to get fired for being a Democrat or a Republican.

Having an opinion isn't something you should be punished for.

And no, the cases I'm referring to are nakedly doxxing. The guy was an idiot, true, but he did that on his own time.

Saying that someone deserves to have their life ruined for voicing an opinion you don't like is some straight up Orwellian bullshit.

 

[RedStarMini]

No, you honestly don't deserve to get fired, especially if you do it on the street in a manner completely unconnected to your job.

Just like you don't deserve to get fired for being an SJW, just like you don't deserve to get fired for being a Democrat or a Republican.

Having an opinion isn't something you should be punished for.

And no, the cases I'm referring to are nakedly doxxing. The guy was an idiot, true, but he did that on his own time.

Saying that someone deserves to have their life ruined for voicing an opinion you don't like is some straight up Orwellian bullshit.

Click to shrink...

It is an opinion that has a disturbing amount of support in america that seeks to actively oppress people. If you let it affect you enough to post to talk about it IN PUBLIC PLATFORM then there's a large chance it will affect you in your work. Now I'm not sure of all the details of what your talking about, which business it was and what the guy says matters. If the guy said the N-word and works for ANYTHING at all official then he will get his ass fucking fired, you do not say those things in those types of jobs, in your private life, sure you can say those things without repercussions, BUT NOT ON A WEBSITE LIKE FACEBOOK (if he said it on facebook). Jobs aren't a fucking fun club, if you have anything above grunt work in a corporation you have to display a degree of self control on your physical and online interactions, if you say something racist then you will get that race angry, and they will do something about it.

It's not orwellian at all, actions have consequences, alienating an entire demographic of people will have consequences

 

[TehChron]

It is an opinion that has a disturbing amount of support in america that seeks to actively oppress people. If you let it affect you enough to post to talk about it IN PUBLIC PLATFORM then there's a large chance it will affect you in your work. Now I'm not sure of all the details of what your talking about, which business it was and what the guy says matters. If the guy said the N-word and works for ANYTHING at all official then he will get his ass fucking fired, you do not say those things in those types of jobs, in your private life, sure you can say those things without repercussions, BUT NOT ON A WEBSITE LIKE FACEBOOK (if he said it on facebook).

Click to shrink...

Dude did it on his own time, in real life. Someone recorded it happening and put it online for him to get doxxed and get his life ruined.

And disliking or buying into negative ethnic stereotypes isn't being part of some grand conspiracy to actively oppress someone. That's false equivalence, and actually buying into that belief is dumb on it's face.

"Oh this person dislikes black people, clearly he's trying to oppress them", right?

Except that isn't how it works. People are a bit more nuanced than that. Moreover, black people say the N-word all the time. People that grew up around black people use it all the time. If it's a part of their everyday vocabulary, then is using it a sign of the individual trying to oppress black people?

Common sense would indicate that of course it isn't. That's the problem with trying to justify those kind of blanket condemnations. They're as nakedly ignorant as the hate they claim to be the antithesis of. At the end of the day, such proclamations are just another form of fascism. You don't erase hatred with more hatred. You do it with education and understanding. Not some kind of ham-fisted vigilante oppression.

Jobs aren't a fucking fun club, if you have anything above grunt work in a corporation you have to display a degree of self control on your physical and online interactions, if you say something racist then you will get that race angry, and they will do something about it.

Click to shrink...

So?

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. That's some straight up victim-blaming you're getting into right there. "Oh if you wear those kind of clothes to that neighborhood then they were clearly asking for it"

"Oh if they broke into the man's house in the middle of the night then it's their own fault for getting killed"

It's not orwellian at all, actions have consequences, alienating an entire demographic of people will have consequences

Click to shrink...

No, saying those consequences are the right thing to do is Orwellian.

Because having an opinion is never wrong. Everyone has a right to free speech, everyone has a right to have their own mind on the matter. You don't get to just waive that simply because it's not what's popular at the time.

What people like you often forget is that there was a time when the shoe was on the other foot, and people died for your right to hold that opinion. All over the world, oppression has always been about killing dissenters. Just because you aren't the ones with the boot on your neck doesn't suddenly dissolve that intrinsic truth.

 

[RedStarMini]

Dude did it on his own time, in real life. Someone recorded it happening and put it online for him to get doxxed and get his life ruined.

And disliking or buying into negative ethnic stereotypes isn't being part of some grand conspiracy to actively oppress someone. That's false equivalence, and actually buying into that belief is dumb on it's face.

"Oh this person dislikes black people, clearly he's trying to oppress them", right?

Except that isn't how it works. People are a bit more nuanced than that. Moreover, black people say the N-word all the time. People that grew up around black people use it all the time. If it's a part of their everyday vocabulary, then is using it a sign of the individual trying to oppress black people?

Common sense would indicate that of course it isn't. That's the problem with trying to justify those kind of blanket condemnations. They're as nakedly ignorant as the hate they claim to be the antithesis of. At the end of the day, such proclamations are just another form of fascism. You don't erase hatred with more hatred. You do it with education and understanding. Not some kind of ham-fisted vigilante oppression.


So?

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. That's some straight up victim-blaming you're getting into right there. "Oh if you wear those kind of clothes to that neighborhood then they were clearly asking for it"

"Oh if they broke into the man's house in the middle of the night then it's their own fault for getting killed"


No, saying those consequences are the right thing to do is Orwellian.

Because having an opinion is never wrong. Everyone has a right to free speech, everyone has a right to have their own mind on the matter. You don't get to just waive that simply because it's not what's popular at the time.

What people like you often forget is that there was a time when the shoe was on the other foot, and people died for your right to hold that opinion. All over the world, oppression has always been about killing dissenters. Just because you aren't the ones with the boot on your neck doesn't suddenly dissolve that intrinsic truth.

Click to shrink...

It's obvious to me now that neither of us will convince the other of their view, so let's end it on this note before this get's out of hand

 

[TehChron]

It's obvious to me now that neither of us will convince the other of their view, so let's end it on this note before this get's out of hand

Click to shrink...

Fair enough

 

[Whiskey Golf]

People I came to QQ for lewds, not for gamergate - if I want that I'll go to SB or Reddit or *shudder* Tumblr.

...okay fine I go to Tumblr to look for lewds too (That reminds me, much check Meara Likes Mead, it's been a while...)