GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[EmperorIng]

I'm no Confederate sympathizer, but thank God Mischief Maker wasn't chosen to call the shots at Arlington Cemetery. He probably wouldn't have come up with an inscription as nice as:

Not for fame or reward
Not for place or for rank
Not lured by ambition
Or goaded by necessity
But in simple
Obedience to duty
As they understood it
These men suffered all
Sacrificed all
Dared all-and died

On a lighter note:

Further to totally qualified engineer WuWu's adventures in DIY custom earbuds: oh my god, Sugru themselves are a bunch of mansplaining misogynists too! Official guidance from manufacturer: when Sugru is used to make custom earbuds, it is not to be in direct contact with your ear canal. Just like that rude mansplainer said, it is intended for use with silicon-tipped earbuds.

I hope nobody besides Wu was actually stupid enough to take her advice and apply adhesive directly to their ear canal. That is a great way to trap bad stuff and encourage a jaw-shatteringly painful ear infection, the sort deserved by only the most shameless liar and charlatan.

I don't know who is more pathetic at this point: Wu, or the people actually still trying to communicate with it/that thing on twitter. Like sheesh, let it/that thing kill itself already through sheer stupidity.

[atheistgod1999]

The big deal with the thing at school is that they now have counseling sessions available for that, and they have Black Lives Matter at tonight's football game or something according to him over the loudspeaker today.

[Volteccer_Jack]

I dunno. Look at the Confederate Declaration of Secession and it's all about Free States failing to cooperate with Slave States on the extradition of escaped slaves.

It's all about some states ignoring the laws of other states despite having explicitly agreed not to do that. The South voted unanimously against Lincoln and he still won. That's in essence why they seceded; his election signaled that they no longer had any say in the nation's government.

If you want to be pedantic you could say that from the South's perspective their entire economy had become centered around the incredibly lucrative cotton industry and the Free States giving safe harbor to escaped slaves were cutting into the profits of plantation slavemasters. You could make that argument if you were a fucking sociopath.

LITERALLY "you're a bad person if you use that argument." Fuck this anti-intellectualism every day and twice on Sunday.

The free states harboring escaped slaves wasn't cutting into profits, not to a degree remotely worthy of drastic action. The percentage of Southern blacks who were free citizens (including quite a few who were slave-owners because equality is beautiful like that) was growing, despite the South bringing in more new slaves than ever, AND most of the free blacks migrating north because Pennsylvania's racist-as-fuck laws were slightly less racist than Maryland's racist-as-fuck laws. Slavery was on the way out, the process was just being artificially slowed down because slavery's benefits were the only defenses the South had against the North's economic and political stranglehold.

It's not a matter of "the South's perspective" either, btw. The South's entire economy was based on cotton for their entire history until after the first World War. This is so indisputable that it was arguably the single most important factor in the American Civil War; the South was relying on outside aid to win (they were easily outmatched and survived as long as they did entirely because Southern Generals were smart and talented and Northern Generals were incompetent fuckwits). The reason the Emancipation Proclamation was made in January of 1863 was because the cotton shortage began seriously affecting Britain at the end of 1862. The reason for the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed literally no one until the war ended 2 years later, was to politicize the war, making it just as costly for the British to intervene as it was for them to stay out of it.

Incidentally, the only reason the North was so eager to go to war was because of a widely held belief that the Confederacy was only truly supported by an elite group of evil plantation owners (you know, what they teach in history books today) and they believed that the silent majority in the South would welcome the Union army. Because moralizing idiots always think this, and it's always fucking wrong. This is one of the many reasons why the war was so incredibly fucking bloody. The North couldn't possibly imagine the idea that people would have a different fucking perspective, and once they were knee-deep in that fact, you started getting shit like William "turn the South into a giant parking lot" Sherman, who of course is celebrated as a hero despite being the fucking definition of a war criminal. And I'll end this rant on that surprisingly on-topic sentence.

Next you'll be saying the WWII Holocaust was morally balanced because of the Treaty of Versailles.

The morals have nothing whatsoever do with it, morals rarely have anything to do with anything, morals don't put food on tables, your obsession with morals is unhealthy. You think the US entered the war because jews? No, it was because we got sucker punched. If you really wanna get moralistic, the Holocaust was jaywalking compared to what our 'allies' in Russia did. Or that time we systematically genocided our way across an entire continent in order to expand the US. If we're going by "whoever murdered the most is the bad guy" then Germany and Japan were the fucking heroes, and we should have been teaming up with them to stop the horrific evil monster that is Russia. But no, you're right, real life is exactly like Star Wars Episode 7, and the Germans were just running around murdering people purely for the sake of murder until Eisenhower swooped in on his giant eagle and threw Hitler into the fires of Mount Doom. Nothing's gray, everything is black and white and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist or an idiot. Maybe you should round them all up so they can't keep doing bad things? Maybe invade Poland while you're at it?

[BulletMagnet]

Nothing's gray, everything is black and white and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist or an idiot. Maybe you should round them all up so they can't keep doing bad things? Maybe invade Poland while you're at it?

There are probably a few points worth discussing somewhere in that post (though the suggestion of a "market-based solution" to slavery that never got a fair chance to shine always cracks me up), but the appearance of "YOU'RE the REAL monster!" to tie the whole thing together is as clear a signal as I've ever received that I've had enough internet for today.

[BryanM]

Incidentally, the only reason the North was so eager to go to war was because of a widely held belief that the Confederacy was only truly supported by an elite group of evil plantation owners (you know, what they teach in history books today) and they believed that the silent majority in the South would welcome the Union army. Because moralizing idiots always think this, and it's always fucking wrong.

That's correct, the elite always warp the culture around them through propaganda and other grooming factors. Since they dictate what you have to think and say to succeed (aka, produce babies), the population they rule over will love them fully if they're given a proper scapegoat and a thick enough veil of isolation between the elite and the serfs. What you don't see doesn't exist.

And this is why we're willing to elect Hillary Clinton today. So. Hooray.

The South voted unanimously against Lincoln and he still won.

No, this is completely incorrect.

The South voted against Stephen A. Douglas. The Democrats could have won the popular vote and remotely possibly the election if they didn't do that.

The only significant difference between Douglas and Breckinridge was that Douglas believed in state's rights to choose on the option of slavery. Breckinridge and his followers want slavery protected in the constitution and made mandatory in every state.

They kind of got what they wanted anyway, as the 13th amendment protects all state-run slavery. Like most garbage people, they get everything they want AND STILL FUCKING COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

Talk about entitlement.

Slavery was on the way out

We're still working on it.

I doubt we'll fix the 13th amendment in my life time; unlike gay marriage no one gives a shit about slaves. But who knows. Crazier things have happened.

I doubt we'll fix the 13th amendment in my life time; unlike gay marriage no one gives a shit about slaves. But who knows. Crazier things have happened.

The funniest thing is they have no fucking sense of logic. Peg A goes into hole A. If you make a system where people profit off of having the government turn people into slaves, public policy will be directed in such a way to maximize the the number of people enslaved. If you're a human, that means you're potential livestock in the current system.

[BIL]

Over the last few weeks I watched the first and second series of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012+2014). Holy fuck, so emotion! I was really feelin it, just like when I read the mangas a decade ago! Good job guys!

It's ok to cry, chaps!

Spoiler

Just don't be a whiny git, and it'll all work out!

Spoiler

So naturally, I started thinking of my fellow appreciator of soulful crying man cartoons, JMACC, and checked to see how his new endeavour was doing. Tragically it is even smaller than before.

This is no way to treat a white cis hetero bro :[

Gibe money pls ;[

He habe many pop cultural detections to share with u ;[

[Skykid]

Yeah, but he's still getting almost 200 bucks a video for producing worthless toxic, misleading junk that shouldn't be validated with a single viewing figure.

That's good money.

[BIL]

Small change compared to the fousands upon fousands his bilge commanded with Juanita at the helm, though! His quietly vanishing up his own asshole is more amusing given his earlier proclamation that he'd be given more attention going solo by virtue of his immense throbbing privilege. It's almost like nobody gives a shit what some dumb pasty dudebro has to say, but they'll stop and listen to the same balls from a cute Bianca Butcher cosplayer. Rowrr! ¦3

I suppose it was less arrogant of him than claiming his totally compelling observations on cartoons and videogames would be his ticket to pop cultural detective validation.

He should team up with this guy :O

[Blinge]

Over the last few weeks I watched the first and second series of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012+2014). Holy fuck, so emotion! I was really feelin it, just like when I read the mangas a decade ago! Good job guys!

Joseph is best JoJo

[BIL]

Yes

Spoiler

Spoiler

SHEEE-ZAAAAAA

[Zen]

I don't think Jonathon (or the wu, for that matter) need Patreon at all, do they? What with both of them being the trust fund babies of very rich parents and all.
Unless, of course, you believe their inferred poverty by disinheritance schtick.
No, I would suggest that he does (or, are advised to do) the Patreon "thing" because it is believed it makes him seem more like the proles.

Jonathons "vanishing" is more to do with the fact that, despite his funds and useful idiocy, he has been exposed so many times as the "full-mcintosh", that he is less attractive to his "advisers".

Before we get the tone police going into full mocking mode, with cries of conspiracy!lol!;



Does anyone honestly believe that this brace of clowns secured a hearing at the UN all on their own?

[BIL]

I don't think Jonathon (or the wu, for that matter) need Patreon at all, do they? What with both of them being the trust fund babies of very rich parents and all.
Unless, of course, you believe their inferred poverty by disinheritance schtick.

Oh no, it's all ego. The money's just an additional bit of validation on the road to glory. JMACC is interesting because he has shades of true faith, or at least desperate guilt, while Wu seems to be a grasping void of pure, amoral appetite.

This makes for even better schadenfreude of course, right down to plucky Juanita making off with all the plaudits and cash. Nobody dies or ends up living in a dumpster, they just stew in neurotic privileged comfort.

edit: now this guy here, this is the real king of pain. A soldier without faith, reduced to cinders in this brutal ideological bun fight. :O

Spoiler

FINISHED HERE
GREETINGS DEATH
HES YOURS TO TAKE AWAAAY ♫

[Zen]

Nothing's gray, everything is black and white and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist or an idiot. Maybe you should round them all up so they can't keep doing bad things? Maybe invade Poland while you're at it?

There are probably a few points worth discussing somewhere in that post (though the suggestion of a "market-based solution" to slavery that never got a fair chance to shine always cracks me up), but the appearance of "YOU'RE the REAL monster!" to tie the whole thing together is as clear a signal as I've ever received that I've had enough internet for today.

Indeed.
Unfortunately, the progressive/regressive mentality is such that, by its very nature, it is always "progressing".
History shows us that this mentality travels round the Ouroboros of belief until it reaches the realms of the "right" from its "far-right" side.
From here the progressive/regressive mentality, being as it is, psychopathically certain of it own righteousness, "proceeds" to enforce its beliefs (which usually comprise of methods of controlling free speech, expression and thought).
Laws, constitutions etc. don't matter at that stage. "Fuck it! Were right. What do ideas like truth and freedom matter when were right!"

We all have our own opinions on what might be best for society. Would I, given the chance, implement those opinions on others against their will? Would I shut them up, shut the down, pass legislation against them. Against ideas and images and words?

No.
Because that would make me a "monster", wouldn't it?

[Mischief Maker]

Fuck me.

Am I seriously going to have to explain why slavery in the US was a bad thing? Seriously?

I'll take hooting klansmen over the monocle-adjusting alt-right any day.

[BulletMagnet]

Unfortunately, the progressive/regressive mentality is such that, by its very nature, it is always "progressing". History shows us that this mentality travels round the Ouroboros of belief until it reaches the realms of the "right" from its "far-right" side.

So in your opinion (see below) any effort to make society more civil, tolerant, etc. is doomed to eventually turn totalitarian? If that's really the way things work, would it have been better in the long run if, say, the civil rights movement hadn't happened? What exactly, if anything, should anybody do when we become aware of such a problem? Or do you not consider such things a "problem" to begin with?

We all have our own opinions on what might be best for society.

At the risk of being accused of "closed-mindedness" (or worse) as a result, methinks it's worth (once again) remembering that some subjects are matters of opinion, while others are not, not to mention that some thoughts and actions only affect a limited group of people, while others have a much longer and more enduring reach. If you personally don't care for a particular individual or even an entire culture but don't let it disproportionately affect how you treat others by default, that's fine, and nobody's going to "thought police" you on it - hell, by law they can't, and no, that isn't going to change, let alone imminently (ProTip: Another individual exercising their freedom of speech to criticize what you just used your freedom of speech to say is NOT "oppression"). On the other hand, if you want to, say, disenfranchise thousands or millions of people in the name of combating in-person voter fraud, you'd better have some actual evidence that said fraud is actually happening, or else your opinion that such a thing is warranted is not "controversial", it's worthless, and deserves to be unreservedly labeled and treated as such.

[Zen]

So in your opinion (see below) any effort to make society more civil, tolerant, etc. is doomed to eventually turn totalitarian?

That entirely depends on what you mean by tolerant and civil and more importantly, on how you attempt to implement said effort.

If that's really the way things work, would it have been better in the long run if, say, the civil rights movement hadn't happened? What exactly, if anything, should anybody do when we become aware of such a problem? Or do you not consider such things a "problem" to begin with?

Did you just ask me if I am a racist?

At the risk of being accused of "closed-mindedness" (or worse) as a result, methinks it's worth (once again) remembering that some subjects are matters of opinion, while others are not

Within the context of this discussion, that is a matter of opinion. To think otherwise is an example of the type of pronoia I mention in my previous post.

not to mention that some thoughts and actions only affect a limited group of people, while others have a much longer and more enduring reach. If you personally don't care for a particular individual or even an entire culture but don't let it disproportionately affect how you treat others by default, that's fine

Again, are you directing this at me? I certainly hope not.

and nobody's going to "thought police" you on it - hell, by law they can't, and no, that isn't going to change, let alone imminently

Those prosecuted for "hate speech" might beg to differ.

(ProTip: Another individual exercising their freedom of speech to criticize what you just used your freedom of speech to say is NOT "oppression").

I would not consider it to be. Indeed, nowhere here have I even remotely, implied otherwise. The flavour of my above post was strongly in favour of everyone's freedom of speech. How anything to the contrary could be inferred, is beyond me

On the other hand, if you want to, say, disenfranchise thousands or millions of people in the name of combating in-person voter fraud, you'd better have some actual evidence that said fraud is actually happening, or else your opinion that such a thing is warranted is not "controversial", it's worthless, and deserves to be unreservedly labeled and treated as such.

What is this? Are you directing this loaded question at me, BulletMagnet? I ask becasuse you are posting this under quotes from my post.

[BulletMagnet]

Did you just ask me if I am a racist?

No, I asked what I asked. If it suits you, feel free to reduce the scope of the question to the single specific case I mentioned: just as an example, in your opinion, did the civil rights movement, on the whole, conform to seeking your aforementioned definitions of "civil" and "tolerant", and were its methods acceptable in your eyes? Has its legacy in fact embraced totalitarian facets? Whatever your answer, can you contrast it with a movement that you view in the opposite light? Most importantly, what available on-the-record facts can you cite to give any of those opinions weight?

Within the context of this discussion, that is a matter of opinion. To think otherwise is an example of the type of pronoia I mention in my previous post.

When said opinion boils down to "anyone who considers themselves aligned with 'progressive' politics is a closet brownshirt", methinks you'd best be ready to offer more than "...well, that's just what I think" when anyone asks for clarification.

As for "paranoia", in your response to my previous post you ask me three times whether I'm accusing you of racism; seriously, simmer down and read what I'm actually writing.

Those prosecuted for "hate speech" might beg to differ.

A quick Google search tells me that the closest thing we have to a legal definition of "hate speech" is similar to the "fighting words" exception to the first amendment, i.e. it's intended to incite a riot or some such thing. If what was said can't be characterized as imminently threatening it's unlikely to hold up in court...though obviously court doesn't cover the reactions you might get from your fellow private citizens. On that note...

I would not consider it to be. Indeed, nowhere here have I even remotely, implied otherwise. The flavour of my above post was strongly in favour of everyone's freedom of speech. How anything to the contrary could be inferred, is beyond me

Apparently you don't believe "progressives" share those same values, which is its own set of issues to hash out, but if you truly believe that a notable chunk of "SJWs" (or whatever term you'd use) pose such a grave and looming threat to free speech, what would you propose be done to remedy the situation?

What is this? Are you directing this loaded question at me, BulletMagnet?

...it wasn't even a question.

[Zen]

No, I asked what I asked. If it suits you, feel free to reduce the scope of the question to the single specific case I mentioned: just as an example, in your opinion, did the civil rights movement, on the whole, conform to seeking your aforementioned definitions of "civil" and "tolerant", and were its methods acceptable in your eyes? Has its legacy in fact embraced totalitarian facets? Whatever your answer, can you contrast it with a movement that you view in the opposite light? Most importantly, what available on-the-record facts can you cite to give any of those opinions weight?

It leaders murdered. Its goals bludgeoned into being via a proxy strongman (the state), true racism (affirmative action) more deep state sponsored division that ever before . . . . .
I take it that it was a rhetorical question?
Not proffering an alternative "movement" does not negate that fact that the civil rights movement was neither civil nor "right".
Fallacious argument is fallacious argument. But you are an intelligent guy, BulletMagnet. You know all of this already.

When said opinion boils down to "anyone who considers themselves aligned with 'progressive' politics is a closet brownshirt", methinks you'd best be ready to offer more than "...well, that's just what I think" when anyone asks for clarification.

Perhaps it would have been helpful if you had stated that in your post, rather than just state that somethings are opinion and somethings are fact. You had not asked for, nor could I give "clarification" to your fact v opinion statement.

As for "paranoia", in your response to my previous post you ask me three times whether I'm accusing you of racism; seriously, simmer down and read what I'm actually writing.

I asked you once. You inferred the rest. I did not write the word "paranoia". I wrote the word pronoia, which referred to your opinion v fact statement as being merely subjective but when not recognised as such is, once again, "an example of the type of pronoia I mention in my previous post".
Let my offer the advice you give to me back to you; "read what I'm actually writing". Also, please do refrain from inferring and stating that I need to "simmer down". I am not heated, nor agitated. Just having a friendly discussion.

A quick Google search tells me that the closest thing we have to a legal definition of "hate speech" is similar to the "fighting words" exception to the first amendment, i.e. it's intended to incite a riot or some such thing. If what was said can't be characterized as imminently threatening it's unlikely to hold up in court...though obviously court doesn't cover the reactions you might get from your fellow private citizens. On that note...

You are speaking of the U.S when you saw "we", not the world at large, I take it?

Apparently you don't believe "progressives" share those same values, which is its own set of issues to hash out, but if you truly believe that a notable chunk of "SJWs" (or whatever term you'd use) pose such a grave and looming threat to free speech, what would you propose be done to remedy the situation?

(ignoring the "tone" implicit in "or whatever term you'd use", for a moment) I would perhaps propose that they, quite simply, stop.

...it wasn't even a question.

Perhaps not. It was so left of field that I did not know what it was.

[Durandal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgSS1pDkMgQ

Iiiii want to be supapraya...

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Back on topic:

Obligatory reading:

Why I feel bad for and understand the angry gamergate gamers

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/devin ... 201885262/
Nice to see the personification of scrotal cancer get his comeuppance.

[Zen]

Back on topic:

Spoiler

Obligatory reading:

Why I feel bad for and understand the angry gamergate gamers

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/devin ... 201885262/
Nice to see the personification of scrotal cancer get his comeuppance.

How shocking. How unforeseen.
How could anyone have known that one of the loudest, most rank, virtue signaling, screaming whores in the church choir was, well, a loud, rank, virtue signaling, screaming whore?

That tweet, ripe with signaling, craven non-admission;



"Listen and believe", Mr. Faraci. "Listen and believe".

[BIL]

Principle you can trust

[Skykid]

Ha ha, love it.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Principle you can trust

I can always rely on this thread to cheer me up.

Appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCQGQ5qBQTA

[BIL]

Yeah, and unlike certain other clowns supposedly barrelling to their fates in Cambodian minefields, WuWu is 100% real. Especially when she lies!

[evil_ash_xero]

That's beautiful.

Back on topic:

Spoiler

Obligatory reading:

Why I feel bad for and understand the angry gamergate gamers

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/devin ... 201885262/
Nice to see the personification of scrotal cancer get his comeuppance.

How shocking. How unforeseen.
How could anyone have known that one of the loudest, most rank, virtue signaling, screaming whores in the church choir was, well, a loud, rank, virtue signaling, screaming whore?

That tweet, ripe with signaling, craven non-admission;



"Listen and believe", Mr. Faraci. "Listen and believe".

[BIL]

Yeah that must be it You should hit up Ron O'Brien again Bri!

Spoiler

A police report or investigation as to Brianna Wu has not been filed or referred to this office. That is the normal method to report a crime, cause an investigation or seek a prosecution. Brianna Wu has had no contact with anyone in this office or the cyber stalking unit of the city prosecutors office. Brianna Wu has not provided any evidence to this office, including any tapes of phone calls allegedly received. Brianna Wu stated online that the alleged caller could be identified if a subpoena was merely issued yet a cell, landline or phone number is not in possession of this office for that purpose; and the proper method to accomplish that is through law enforcement not online posts.

The local FBI office has referred nothing to this office regarding Wu nor contacted us indicating they intend to do so. For unknown reasons Brianna Wu chose to post something online regarding such threats stating they came from Columbus and it was within our authority. Yet she has never had contact of any kind or nature with this office. As a result, this office received a number of emails and phone calls that wasted time and resources to respond to concerned persons who apparently observed these postings.

Now, I've not seen much of my second favourite character AJ Daulerio lately. A few months back, a rehabilitation seemed to be in the works! I wonder if the whole "posting footage of unconscious girl getting raped in a restroom, then blowing off her and her father's pleas to take down the video" took the wind out of those particular sails. As an aside, I hope if AJ does anything crazier than going on the lam like he says he'd considered, he doesn't involve anyone else in his grand exit. And also, that he knows to go for the roof of the mouth - you don't wanna end up like the Judas Priest "human muppet" kid.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I thought there was something fishy about this but just assumed it was Devin Faraci's fingers.

[atheistgod1999]

You know, because the FBI letting Hillary off the hook is extremely pro-Trump.

[atheistgod1999]

One of my Skype friends linked me this video, called "Unboxing Masculinity", saying it's total cringe. I watched it, and I couldn't believe that it wasn't satire.