What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Politics in Games or: how I learned GG was right

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vyor

Well-known member
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2...e-political-heres-how-they-can-be-progressive

There's the guardian saying that all games are political and that almost every modern game pushes right wing politics and that wolfenstein 3d. As in, the first or second FPS was on the right side... but that it shouldn't have been made because... first person shooters are an inherently right wing genre of games.

And that Tropico of all things pushes a right wing economic and social stance... despite allowing you to play as a fucking communistic dictator. Hardly right wing.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-games-fuel-rise-far-right-violent-misogynist

And there's the guardian saying that video games fuel the far right. Somehow. I mean look at this:
First, rightwing ideologies have been overrepresented and dominant throughout the history of video games. Although affected by context, video games have long focused on the expulsion of "aliens" (Space Invaders to XCOM), fear of impure infection (Half-Life to The Last of Us), border control (Missile Commander to Plants vs Zombies), territory acquisition (Command & Conquer to Splatoon), empire building (Civilization to Tropico), princess recovery (Mario to Zelda), and restoration of natural harmony (Sonic to FarmVille).

Can you make any sense of that? Cause I can't. Just a buncha non sequiturs. Honestly, how the fuck is Farmville, a game about subverting the natural order through farming about the restorization of natural harmony? And isn't that a more left wing hippy idea than far right?

Then you have this pile of bullshit:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/379430/discussions/0/1693788384130434903/

Banning people from your site for talking about a creator of a game(which happens to be rather decent, if not amazing; too buggy) because you happen to disagree with his politics is, uh, toxic to say the least. And of course the media attacks on the game:
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/9kzqxd/kingdom-come-deliverance-waypoint-radio
https://kotaku.com/idiots-fight-to-keep-a-medieval-game-white-1516970808
https://www.vidaextra.com/rpg/kingdom-come-deliverance-rigor-historico-o-machismo-disfrazado

Here's an interesting line from that last one:
It is impossible for a game to be historically realistic

Which is just wrong.

And then... then you have the reaction to Doom Eternal's gameplay trailers. Which is laughable.
https://www.gamerevolution.com/feat...l-mortally-challenged-joke-offensively-boring

If you're offended by that, maybe you should look in a mirror. It's making fun of corporations still, just the corporations that try and pander to the left instead of the right this time. It falls right in line with the first game's jokes. Portraying things that are bad as things you shouldn't worry about or be happy for.

It's corporate PR speak. It's akin to saying "Remember, invaders can be an offensive term, please refer to them as the poor instead and we can make their stay in their new home a pleasant one"

Equating an actual demonic invasion with something harmless is the joke. It's something corporations do all the damn time FFS.
 
Read the first article again. It doesn't say Wolfenstein was right wing, it just notes that it spawned a genre that frequently is DESPITE not being so itself. It then goes on to speak positively about the many games with liberal/progressive themes, even including Dwarf Fortress.

The second one by that same writer, however makes me want to smack him upside the head for saying that environmentalism is a right wing position.
 
Read the first article again. It doesn't say Wolfenstein was right wing, it just notes that it spawned a genre that frequently is DESPITE not being so itself. It then goes on to speak positively about the many games with liberal/progressive themes, even including Dwarf Fortress.

Perhaps I misread then. Still, he clearly takes a dim view of video games as a whole and is unable to separate his politics, which are very much not liberal despite his claims, from the medium to the point it warps his views on what that medium actually is.

He also said that those games he praised(how the hell is dwarf fortress liberal? Half the fun of the game is how much you can murder the dwarves. Like the Sims) are terrible at influencing people and seems to forget that right wing media is a thing that exists outside of games. He treats books, as an example, as a giant left wing monolith and says that games should be the same way.

Not a great bastion of impartiality.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2...e-political-heres-how-they-can-be-progressive

There's the guardian saying that all games are political and that almost every modern game pushes right wing politics and that wolfenstein 3d. As in, the first or second FPS was on the right side... but that it shouldn't have been made because... first person shooters are an inherently right wing genre of games.

And that Tropico of all things pushes a right wing economic and social stance... despite allowing you to play as a fucking communistic dictator. Hardly right wing.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-games-fuel-rise-far-right-violent-misogynist

And there's the guardian saying that video games fuel the far right. Somehow. I mean look at this:


Can you make any sense of that? Cause I can't. Just a buncha non sequiturs. Honestly, how the fuck is Farmville, a game about subverting the natural order through farming about the restorization of natural harmony? And isn't that a more left wing hippy idea than far right?

Then you have this pile of bullshit:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/379430/discussions/0/1693788384130434903/

Banning people from your site for talking about a creator of a game(which happens to be rather decent, if not amazing; too buggy) because you happen to disagree with his politics is, uh, toxic to say the least. And of course the media attacks on the game:
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/9kzqxd/kingdom-come-deliverance-waypoint-radio
https://kotaku.com/idiots-fight-to-keep-a-medieval-game-white-1516970808
https://www.vidaextra.com/rpg/kingdom-come-deliverance-rigor-historico-o-machismo-disfrazado

Here's an interesting line from that last one:


Which is just wrong.

And then... then you have the reaction to Doom Eternal's gameplay trailers. Which is laughable.
https://www.gamerevolution.com/feat...l-mortally-challenged-joke-offensively-boring

If you're offended by that, maybe you should look in a mirror. It's making fun of corporations still, just the corporations that try and pander to the left instead of the right this time. It falls right in line with the first game's jokes. Portraying things that are bad as things you shouldn't worry about or be happy for.

It's corporate PR speak. It's akin to saying "Remember, invaders can be an offensive term, please refer to them as the poor instead and we can make their stay in their new home a pleasant one"

Equating an actual demonic invasion with something harmless is the joke. It's something corporations do all the damn time FFS.
>GG was totally about game ethics and not nerds that have always treated women like shit, getting together to treat women like shit again.
tenor.gif
 
I guess a game cannot be historically accuratedue to aj accurate game being super boring or uninteresting but meh
 
>GG was totally about game ethics and not nerds that have always treated women like shit, getting together to treat women like shit again.
Here's the results of the only poll ever conducted on GamerGate I can find. Results conclude that situation is mostly progressive versus liberal, rather than anything else, because ninety eight percent support equal rights for humans, and the quite significant plurality vote for left-wing parties. With UKIP's political spectrum confusing self being the stand out, but their power came mostly from desiring independence from the EU to keep out the increasingly-problem-causing immigrants. Sure, the poll size would be trivially fakeable with bots, but it's inconsistent on that, with 75% of responses claiming themselves white, as well as a 75% support of civilian firearm ownership. It doesn't fit any sort of false-flagging pattern.

The results generally come back as distinctly anti-authoritarianism, with anything outside that being a befuddled mess. And, as 69% of respondents said GamerGate could be best described as a consumer revolt, it's safe to say that the majority of the pro-GamerGate demographic was, indeed, concerned about journalistic integrity in gaming media, with there being a vocal minority of trolls who'd do it without any concerted harassment campaign because the people harassed were openly calling all gamers, the gaming community as a whole, a cesspit of bigotry. The only statistics I can locate go against your narrative, with news articles sourcing that thread, or its constituent polls. Can you find any statistical evidence supporting your side? Or is it just anecdotes and unsubstantiated claims as far as the eye can see?

Oh, and the anecdotes of harassment include some absolute gems of utterly blatant fabrication, including a screenshot of hate posts less than five minutes after they were posted while logged out. There's no reason for that to happen, the closeness of timing at least proves the one who did it was actively looking for harassment to prove a point and, most importantly, the posts themselves were presented to the wider public in a format that wasn't even a tweet. Which is, you know, rather important, given that she claimed it was a series of abusive tweets.
 
Man

You're just an apologist CARTOON character
Then give me proof that I'm wrong. Show me statistics that prove GamerGate was a hate movement. Seriously, if I'm actually wrong, prove it to me. I want to be genuinely correct, the problem is that I have wildly incomplete information, a large chunk of it expanded from other information without me quite knowing, I'm apathetic at best towards atrocity and consider the objective facts more important than vague ideals.
 

Okay, let's go over your data.

The five most popular subreddits used by GamerGate supporters are /r/KotakuInAction (26%), /r/TumblrInAction (19%), /r/Gaming (7%), /r/Games (7%) and /r/4chan (4%).
The five most popular 8chan/4chan boards used by GamerGate supporters are /v/ (16%), /gamergatehq/ (12%), /b/ (7%), /a/ (7%) and /pol/ (7%).
Nearly fifteen-percent (13%) of respondents reported not using 8chan or at least not using any of the boards listed.

I think we have found the source of the troll infestation. Pol is 7% of the entire survey's most popular board on 4chan.

The vast majority (76%) of GamerGate supporters believe that GamerGate is about both ethics and anti-SJWism. Less than one-fifth (17%) belief GamerGate is only about ethics, with four-percent being undecided or believing it is about something else and three-percent believing it is only about anti-SJWism.

So GG isn't just about ethics in journalism. This versus 69% of ethics in journalism leaves a 9% remainder. I wonder what they're in the movement for...

Oh yeah, 3% of the movement identify as former gamers and 1% as nongamers.

The five-most popular GamerGate communities (out of the choices available) are /r/KotakuInAction (21%), Voat KotakuInAction (12%), Twitter (12%), GamerGateHQ (10%) and /v/'s GamerGate thread (7%).

Voat...

Seriously, Voat...

And a 4chan board...

A group that opposed SJW's on Voat. Your vocal minority of troll's is at least twelve percent of the movement, excluding 4chan.

The five most popular GamerGate e-celebrities are Sargon of Akkad (38%), TotalBiscuit (20%), Milo Yiannopoulos (10%), Christina Hoff Sommers (7%) and Internet Aristocrat (6%)

Speaks for itself, doesn't it.

And speaking of Sargon, it looks like we've found your UKIP explanation. But I'm sure the mostly white male group that opposes feminism couldn't possible support UKIP for right wing reasons.

A plurality of GamerGate supporters identify as libertarians (19%), followed by liberal (17%), moderate (13%), socialist (7%), other (6%), social democrat (6%), progressive (6%), conservative (5%), green (5%), men's rights activist (4%), anarchist (3%), nationalist (3%), feminist (2%), communist (2%), fascist (1%), neo-reactionary (1%) and Islamist (less than 1%).

Remember that Sargon of Akkad followers exists, which means you can't take Liberal as leftist position since they will identity as Liberals while for example voting for UKIP. Which means this isn't a significant plurality vote for left-wing parties. It's a coalition of right wingers and moderates dominating a movement that opposes feminism and SJWs.

Libertarians are right wing. The USA libertarians movement are a pipeline to the alt-right (LINK) and most alt-righters will claim to be libertarian. The youtube channel reason tv gets more down votes than up votes when it posts videos that oppose alt-right points at the expend of traditional libertarian policies. Go to their youtube channel and read the comment sections if you don't believe me.


The vast majority (95%) of GamerGate support equal rights for all humans. With that being said there is a plurality-tie (46%) between those who believe modern feminism is doing serious harm to society or that feminism does more harm than good. Six-percent believe modern feminism has little to no-impact on society. Two-percent believe modern feminism does more good than harm and one-percent believe that modern feminism is incredibly beneficial to society. The vast majority (88%) of GamerGate supporters do not believe that women are oppressed in the first-world.


So feminists believe women aren''t oppressed, the modern feminism shouldn't exist, and that fighting SJW's is just as important as ethics in games journalism. A movement that started on 4chan and looks up to Sargon of Akkad and Milo Yiannopolous.


A plurality (41%) of GamerGate supporters believe that internet harassment is a problem, albeit a minor one. Thirty-two percent believe internet harassment is largely a non-issue. Seventeen percent believe internet harassment is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Six-percent believe internet harassment is a serious problem, but doesn't need to be addressed and three-percent were undecided.

The above paragraph shows that only six percent of GG believe harassment is a serious problem on the internet, while 32% view it as a non-issue.

And then all their critics suffer chronic harassment from anonymous trolls. Who recite 4chan talking points while the board is one of the movements largest bases. What a mystery...


Then give me proof that I'm wrong. Show me statistics that prove GamerGate was a hate movement. Seriously, if I'm actually wrong, prove it to me. I want to be genuinely correct, the problem is that I have wildly incomplete information, a large chunk of it expanded from other information without me quite knowing, I'm apathetic at best towards atrocity and consider the objective facts more important than vague ideals.

Here.

The GG timeline that 4chan doesn't want you to see. And guess what? Pol was harassing Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkisian before the gamer gate hashtag even existed. And strangely when over 75% of a movement use 4chan and view opposing SJW's as a core part of the movement, people tend to react by viewing gamers as if they were bigoted assholes.

I apathetic to whole thing as well, and get my information on it second hand, but from what I've read Pol is as usually responsible for everything wrong.
 
Results conclude that situation is mostly progressive versus liberal, rather than anything else, because ninety eight percent support equal rights for humans, and the quite significant plurality vote for left-wing parties. With UKIP's political spectrum confusing self being the stand out, but their power came mostly from desiring independence from the EU to keep out the increasingly-problem-causing immigrants.
How in the fuck did you reach that fucking conclusion also those people are probably "liberal" the same way you are looking at this data:
GG E-Celebs
The five most popular GamerGate e-celebrities are Sargon of Akkad (38%), TotalBiscuit (20%), Milo Yiannopoulos (10%), Christina Hoff Sommers (7%) and Internet Aristocrat (6%).
Because Sargon, Milo, Hoff and IA are totally leftist bruh.
Or the fact that Rush V, the man that recommends you get women liquored up ao you can fucking rape them, made a pro GG website.
Or the fact that famous rapist and all around subhuman Mike Cernovich offered his services to Eron Gjoni after his ex girlfriend put a restraining order on him.
Also lol "they don't support harassment."
When TechRaptor a pro GG website were quick to host content supporting and enabling attacks on Zoe Quinn even hosting an article listing her family's home address and phone numbers.
Also here's some fun artwork they made, it's very inclusive.
AD93079A-418B-4A59-A608-541CE0061FBE.jpeg B464C6CB-8748-49F9-9B26-93021BEB2CFE.png
 
GamersGate is the culmination of a 'Culture War' between people who play games (i.e. 'Gamers') who weren't a cohesive unified group beforehand and those who hate all new media and gaming was just the latest target. The leftover weapons from that cultural conflict were still on the ground when GamersGate erupted.

To summarize the situation:
Problem, a lot of the problems from GamersGate is because of men like Jack Thompson who led the charge against gaming in general until the late last decade.


Thanks to people like Jack, the resulting culture war pretty much caused a lot of problems in the overall social-political landscape... and when the war was 'over' -as much an Israeli-Palestinian conflict is 'over'- a lot of the tools were still around for the idiots to pickup...
 
The title. GG was a harassment movement literally named after an incident where a bitter ex did an open workshopping session on how to make as damning an accusation as possible.

Gamergate only ever existed for harassment, that's what the following time has shown, that's what it's chosing of it's own name- a banner they picked of their own free will- and any talk of wider ethics and such has always been nothing more than a smokescreen.

Also, ironically, Milo, one of the big names, was an anti-video-game crusader before they adopted him due to him specifically deciding that targeting feminists and the like in video games would be a good thing. They adopted a Jake Thompson because he was a media figure who'd hate who they wanted to hate.

Short version? GG has always been a horrible harassment movement, conversations about how it's not often start with "but it's not a harassment movement," and circle around to "and the people we hate are horrible and you shouldn't mind them them being harassed," and it's all kinds of toxic gatekeeping all about controlling who can and can't enjoy and make criticism of video games. There's no ethical excuse for supporting them, there's no separating them from the harassment, because that's the core of the movement and in it's very name.
 
Since you decided to link a publicly-editable wiki with an actually widespread reputation for lies, I'll hand you the GamerGate wiki timeline. They cover a number of related incidents predating GamerGate, going back to 2007, and actually mention the nasty things outlined in "The Zoe Post" directly. The RationalWiki timeline also declines to mention that Zoe Quin used a DMCA takedown on MundaneMatt's video about the situation, among other things. Many, many other things. Seriously, the GG wiki has 804 citation links.

The RationalWiki timeline mentions far less about the shit the journalists did to try and silence GamerGate than the GamerGate wiki does, while the GamerGate wiki spends far less page space on the harassment. How about we cross-reference the two and check their sources to get the actual timeline? The fact of the matter is that you're completely denying GamerGate has any legitimacy as an outcry against bias in gaming journalism, while I claim that the harassment is exaggerated to be the entire GamerGate movement by progressives.

My end has lower needs of proof than yours, hell, you've already disproven yourself because 20% is still a considerable minority, and I do believe that the timelines offer far more support for my side, when you start digging for citations. If only because the GG Wiki has far more of them.

Because Sargon, Milo, Hoff and IA are totally leftist bruh.
Sargon of Akkad, a person who I frequently watch the videos of (he recently slang shit at some UKIP members for being the exact sort you think UKIP at large is), has right-wing views founded on fairly direct reasoning, and is mostly liberal in beliefs and reasoning. The EU is becoming increasingly authoritarian and less liable to the people it governs, so he wants his country out of it to preserve liberty. He opposes the two major established parties because they're both constantly fucking things up, like the conservatives fucking over a variety of infrastructure by privatizing it and Labour paving the way for immigrants who want the economic benefits of living in the First World, but also refuse to assimilate into the culture of where they now live. His support of UKIP is specifically and solely about fixing actual problems caused by immigration, getting back freedom of speech and unfucking Brexit negotiations. His reasoning is primarily liberal, with an element of appeal to tradition in regards to the immigration debate. He's actually floated the term "liberalist" because most of his views land squarely in liberal values, regardless of the left/right dichotomy.

Milo Yiannopoulos... Is a right-wing useful idiot, far as I can tell, I'll give you that one. Climate change denier, assumption that athiests live an empty existence, anti-abortion, religiously motivated beliefs... Check marks filled, he's right wing.

Christina Hoff Sommers wrote two books listed on her Wikipedia page. In the first, "Who Stole Feminism?", which received praise for being remarkable unbiased, she outlined the major divide in Feminism between the actual de jure equality movement, which she sees as the minority at this point in time, and the "gender feminists" who attempt to directly correct the inequalities in outcome present, rather than address underlying causes. Her very well-sourced research debunked a large amount of talking points. Her later book, "The War Against Boys", has a much lower standard of evidence, but does manage to firmly show that "gender feminists", the intersectional/progressive mainstream of the modern movement, are actively opposed to the idea of gender roles as a thing that should exist. And some of the reviewers went on to say that isn't a real attack on boys... Seriously, you got any clue how fucked in the head that's left people!? At any rate, the appearance is very much that she's fairly traditional in her view of gender roles in the sense of having them, which... Isn't far right, just a technically right-wing view, and is decidedly critical of modern Feminism. Which she had a scientifically acclaimed book about proving they are frequently making arguments on wildly inaccurate facts and are working to forcefully correct for historic differences in performance, rather than removing the actual systemic barriers like the "equality feminists".

Internet Aristocrat is virulently anti-Social Justice, which is technically right-wing, in the same sense that everyone who viciously despises the UK Labour party technically has a far-right view. It's a single thing, not really connected to any other beliefs, and the guy dug into the facts he could find, uncovering a lot of connections of a sort decidedly unhealthy to proper journalism. Because producers and reviewers should not be catering to eachother, and close personal association is a big red flag for that. And social justice warriors (was it still their term of choice back then? They actually coined that shit unironically) were doxxing, harassing and slandering the whole way through, alongside the gaming media hurling endless slander at the movement (which, as we have hopefully established, was mostly an actual anti-corruption movement against this media in the first place)

Of your four "right-wing" individuals, only one of them has a real, firm claim to being actually right-wing, to my ability to easily find. The other three are "right wing" insofar as they're anti-"social justice", because "social justice" is a fucking cancer at this point. Far-left and authoritarian, at the least, because like it or not, hate speech laws and censorship are authoritarian views. Extremely so, because they silence opposition to elements of it.

Short version? GG has always been a horrible harassment movement, conversations about how it's not often start with "but it's not a harassment movement," and circle around to "and the people we hate are horrible and you shouldn't mind them them being harassed," and it's all kinds of toxic gatekeeping all about controlling who can and can't enjoy and make criticism of video games. There's no ethical excuse for supporting them, there's no separating them from the harassment, because that's the core of the movement and in it's very name.
Dude, I literally just linked to statistics that vehemently anti-GamerGate individuals accept show the majority of the movement was legitimatley about ethics in journalism. Their crude estimates can't reach a real 20% figure.

Edit to properly critique this post: The reason for wanting to eject the current crop of journalists is because they incessantly bring politics and personal association into their judgement of games, while working to silence alternative viewpoints. The name, ultimately, doesn't matter (hell, it started as the aptly-named Quinnspiracy, as they had decent evidence on her, personally, fucking with proper review practices). The issue is that they're not focusing on reviewing games as entertainment, they're making political points and critiques of culture while happening to focus on how those relate to gaming.
 
Dude, I literally just linked to statistics that vehemently anti-GamerGate individuals accept show the majority of the movement was legitimatley about ethics in journalism. Their crude estimates can't reach a real 20% figure.

And yet it was named after harassment, had a huge and persistent harassment component, and everyone who signed up was at the least ok with that.

Most people talking about the excuses? Doesn't make it a harassment core. Oooh, 'only' not-quite-20% is harassment. Normal movements have nothing near that, and most of the rest can be summed up as 'cheering squad,' anyway.

It's a harassment movement and trying to weasel word and say how the harassment doesn't qualify as 'enough' harassment is pretty ridiculous on a movement that named itself after a harassment incident. This is literally the banner they picked and decided they were ok with- harassment.


Edit to properly critique this post: The reason for wanting to eject the current crop of journalists is because they incessantly bring politics and personal association into their judgement of games, while working to silence alternative viewpoints. The name, ultimately, doesn't matter (hell, it started as the aptly-named Quinnspiracy, as they had decent evidence on her, personally, fucking with proper review practices). The issue is that they're not focusing on reviewing games as entertainment, they're making political points and critiques of culture while happening to focus on how those relate to gaming.

It's also funny that for all the saying it's about that, they don't target journalists based on, say, being in the pocket of major companies, but tend to target small ones for being women, feminist, lGBT, yadda yadda. Often on contrived reasons.

The fact that you're also choosing to include a sling at one of the harassment targets, yea, says a lot. "No, it's not about harassment! Also lemme say how (target) is bad and was tots guilty, really...".


Funny thing about criticism: Proper criticism is about politics and culture and pretty much whatever. When I was younger, everyone dreamed of video games being treated seriously like art- which would involve the whole spectrum of video games. And then it starts happening, and GG is like, "What! You can't treat video games like art and talk about the cultural and political relevance!". That's not ethics on video games or proper journalism practices at all, that's about people being mad that video games are actually treated like art- and the fact that you chose "they're making political points and critiques of culture while happening to focus on how those relate to gaming." as a negative really says a lot.

This is a movement that decided when video games got big enough for people to start treating it seriously in terms of it's cultural impact, they should publicly drag video games names in the mud and try and gatekeep- via the mechanism of harassment and cheering on harassment of course- as hard as they could in order to get people to not talk about cultural factors in video games. Back in my day, being treated as relevant as the goal, to throw a multi-year, threat-filled hissy fit over the fact video games are being treated as relevant is just all kinds of sad and goes against where real video game fans had wanted things to go for decades.
 
Since you decided to link a publicly-editable wiki with an actually widespread reputation for lies, I'll hand you the GamerGate wiki timeline. They cover a number of related incidents predating GamerGate, going back to 2007, and actually mention the nasty things outlined in "The Zoe Post" directly. The RationalWiki timeline also declines to mention that Zoe Quin used a DMCA takedown on MundaneMatt's video about the situation, among other things. Many, many other things. Seriously, the GG wiki has 804 citation links.

The RationalWiki timeline mentions far less about the shit the journalists did to try and silence GamerGate than the GamerGate wiki does, while the GamerGate wiki spends far less page space on the harassment. How about we cross-reference the two and check their sources to get the actual timeline? The fact of the matter is that you're completely denying GamerGate has any legitimacy as an outcry against bias in gaming journalism, while I claim that the harassment is exaggerated to be the entire GamerGate movement by progressives.

My end has lower needs of proof than yours, hell, you've already disproven yourself because 20% is still a considerable minority, and I do believe that the timelines offer far more support for my side, when you start digging for citations. If only because the GG Wiki has far more of them.


Sargon of Akkad, a person who I frequently watch the videos of (he recently slang shit at some UKIP members for being the exact sort you think UKIP at large is), has right-wing views founded on fairly direct reasoning, and is mostly liberal in beliefs and reasoning. The EU is becoming increasingly authoritarian and less liable to the people it governs, so he wants his country out of it to preserve liberty. He opposes the two major established parties because they're both constantly fucking things up, like the conservatives fucking over a variety of infrastructure by privatizing it and Labour paving the way for immigrants who want the economic benefits of living in the First World, but also refuse to assimilate into the culture of where they now live. His support of UKIP is specifically and solely about fixing actual problems caused by immigration, getting back freedom of speech and unfucking Brexit negotiations. His reasoning is primarily liberal, with an element of appeal to tradition in regards to the immigration debate. He's actually floated the term "liberalist" because most of his views land squarely in liberal values, regardless of the left/right dichotomy.

Milo Yiannopoulos... Is a right-wing useful idiot, far as I can tell, I'll give you that one. Climate change denier, assumption that athiests live an empty existence, anti-abortion, religiously motivated beliefs... Check marks filled, he's right wing.

Christina Hoff Sommers wrote two books listed on her Wikipedia page. In the first, "Who Stole Feminism?", which received praise for being remarkable unbiased, she outlined the major divide in Feminism between the actual de jure equality movement, which she sees as the minority at this point in time, and the "gender feminists" who attempt to directly correct the inequalities in outcome present, rather than address underlying causes. Her very well-sourced research debunked a large amount of talking points. Her later book, "The War Against Boys", has a much lower standard of evidence, but does manage to firmly show that "gender feminists", the intersectional/progressive mainstream of the modern movement, are actively opposed to the idea of gender roles as a thing that should exist. And some of the reviewers went on to say that isn't a real attack on boys... Seriously, you got any clue how fucked in the head that's left people!? At any rate, the appearance is very much that she's fairly traditional in her view of gender roles in the sense of having them, which... Isn't far right, just a technically right-wing view, and is decidedly critical of modern Feminism. Which she had a scientifically acclaimed book about proving they are frequently making arguments on wildly inaccurate facts and are working to forcefully correct for historic differences in performance, rather than removing the actual systemic barriers like the "equality feminists".

Internet Aristocrat is virulently anti-Social Justice, which is technically right-wing, in the same sense that everyone who viciously despises the UK Labour party technically has a far-right view. It's a single thing, not really connected to any other beliefs, and the guy dug into the facts he could find, uncovering a lot of connections of a sort decidedly unhealthy to proper journalism. Because producers and reviewers should not be catering to eachother, and close personal association is a big red flag for that. And social justice warriors (was it still their term of choice back then? They actually coined that shit unironically) were doxxing, harassing and slandering the whole way through, alongside the gaming media hurling endless slander at the movement (which, as we have hopefully established, was mostly an actual anti-corruption movement against this media in the first place)

Of your four "right-wing" individuals, only one of them has a real, firm claim to being actually right-wing, to my ability to easily find. The other three are "right wing" insofar as they're anti-"social justice", because "social justice" is a fucking cancer at this point. Far-left and authoritarian, at the least, because like it or not, hate speech laws and censorship are authoritarian views. Extremely so, because they silence opposition to elements of it.


Dude, I literally just linked to statistics that vehemently anti-GamerGate individuals accept show the majority of the movement was legitimatley about ethics in journalism. Their crude estimates can't reach a real 20% figure.

Edit to properly critique this post: The reason for wanting to eject the current crop of journalists is because they incessantly bring politics and personal association into their judgement of games, while working to silence alternative viewpoints. The name, ultimately, doesn't matter (hell, it started as the aptly-named Quinnspiracy, as they had decent evidence on her, personally, fucking with proper review practices). The issue is that they're not focusing on reviewing games as entertainment, they're making political points and critiques of culture while happening to focus on how those relate to gaming.
Right because Sargon, a person whom Richard Fucking Spencer referred to as a good starting point to get people on the road to white nationalism, and constantly defends and shills for people like Trump and Marie Le Pen, is a fucking leftist.

I don't know what you're smoking my dude but it be some good shit.
Also Hoff is full of shit:
As evidence of this supposed classroom prejudice against boys, Sommers told the audience that schools are replacing boys' favorite game, "tag," with a more female-friendly alternative called "circle of friends." Sommers has been winding people up with this story for more than a decade: It shows up in The War Against Boys; in her 2005 book One Nation Under Therapy; in an interview that year on The Daily Show; and in a Q&A last week with NRO. So what schools, exactly, have outlawed tag? When Jon Stewart asked her, Sommers awkwardly backtracked: "Well, this is recommended in a book called Quit It, which is an anti-bullying curriculum." In other words: "circle of friends" might be a real thing somewhere; it might not. Tag is not under threat. And neither, contrary to Sommers's claims, are American men
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114815/national-review-theres-war-men-not-women
http://fair.org/extra/the-stolen-feminism-hoax/
 
Here.

The GG timeline that 4chan doesn't want you to see. And guess what? Pol was harassing Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkisian before the gamer gate hashtag even existed. And strangely when over 75% of a movement use 4chan and view opposing SJW's as a core part of the movement, people tend to react by viewing gamers as if they were bigoted assholes.

I apathetic to whole thing as well, and get my information on it second hand, but from what I've read Pol is as usually responsible for everything wrong.

Define harassment, because the games media would define simple comments and criticism as such as shown by the latest round of bullshit over a bitch getting fired for being a bitch to someone making simple comments on her twitter feed(when she was talking about game design).


Proven fact that Anita was faking those threats. That's what the image is for.

I get that sometimes things can be too big for your head to handle but this is a pretty standard political cartoon.

Most people talking about the excuses? Doesn't make it a harassment core. Oooh, 'only' not-quite-20% is harassment. Normal movements have nothing near that, and most of the rest can be summed up as 'cheering squad,' anyway.

BLM has a larger part of it being violent assholes than that.

Right because Sargon, a person whom Richard Fucking Spencer referred to as a good starting point to get people on the road to white nationalism, and constantly defends and shills for people like Trump and Marie Le Pen, is a fucking leftist.

Spencer will say anything to get attention. If that's the best you got then clearly I should watch more of sargon because he pisses you off, and anyone that does that is clearly saying things that are somewhere close to the truth. Closer than what you got anyway.
 
If that's the best you got then clearly I should watch more of sargon because he pisses you off
I don't give a shit about what you rot your brain watching, but Sargon is not in any way shape or form a fucking part of the left.
 
I get that sometimes things can be too big for your head to handle but this is a pretty standard political cartoon.
Also Vyor I'm usually patient with you but you cannot be this fucking naive that meme is a shop of this one.
EFAEBB75-34B6-453D-B4C2-FF712366C634.jpeg
Also Vyor I want a cite that she faked the threats because the FBI investigated that shit and they discovered they did threaten her and let the people that did so off with a warning.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...rassment-threat-investigation-records-release
Another suspect was interviewed around San Jose, California in late 2015. According to the report, he "considered himself to be a 'tech guy.'" who "often plays video games." He was "aware about Gamergate from reading about it on Google News" and recalled posting comments on 4chan mocking someone (likely also Wu) who he "considered a professional victim who exaggerated the threats." He then "admitted to sending [a] threatening email" that he admitted "looked really bad." Although details about it are redacted, the report goes on to say that he "does not own a shotgun," which hints at its contents. "[Redacted] understood that it was a federal crime to send a threatening communication to anyone and will never do it again," the report concludes.
 
I don't give a shit about what you rot your brain watching, but Sargon is not in any way shape or form a fucking part of the left.

He ain't the right wing either considering his rather vocal dislike of the far right.
Also Vyor I'm usually patient with you but you cannot be this fucking naive that meme is a shop of this one.
View attachment 108

And I don't actually give a shit where it fucking came from. It's accurate when applied to anita. And zoe quinn for that matter.
 
He ain't the right wing either considering his rather vocal dislike of the far right.
Right he's a "classical liberal" a "centrist" or whatever deflective bullshit he'll say he is even though he supports reactionary candidates like Trump and Marine Le Pen and only criticizes the left with the excuse that he 'doesn't want to improve the right' even when his 'advice' is nothing more than him quote mining his opponents and making shit up.

Also I see you didn't read the article about the FBI report or the quoted section or is this one of them 'all womenz are lying sluts!' things?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom