Is it safe here? or How I Caged My Very Own Nicolas

Oh absolutely. The only reason she was able to go from small time to big time was because she rode the negative attention she got, and then did the same thing again when Gamergate started. She's smart, and has smart partners.

That said, while I couldn't give a single damn about Gamergate and do not care about anyone's stance on it, I do not like Anita Sarkeesian. It doesn't matter if it's her or someone like Jack Thompson, anyone who uses poorly made, cherrypicked arguments to claim that this hobby is bad and makes bad people is my enemy. Simple as that.

Of course, since this is in the Gamergate thread, no one is actually going to read this. But still.

That said, in the Colbert Report, I couldn't tell if she actually couldn't name three games or if that was a satire on Colbert's part. Because it looked to me like she was evading a softball question.
 
Longo_2_guns said:
Oh absolutely. The only reason she was able to go from small time to big time was because she rode the negative attention she got, and then did the same thing again when Gamergate started. She's smart, and has smart partners.

That said, while I couldn't give a single damn about Gamergate and do not care about anyone's stance on it, I do not like Anita Sarkeesian. It doesn't matter if it's her or someone like Jack Thompson, anyone who uses poorly made, cherrypicked arguments to claim that this hobby is bad and makes bad people is my enemy. Simple as that.

Of course, since this is in the Gamergate thread, no one is actually going to read this. But still.

That said, in the Colbert Report, I couldn't tell if she actually couldn't name three games or if that was a satire on Colbert's part. Because it looked to me like she was evading a softball question.

Thats the same arguments I keep making about Sarkeesian.

Of course that makes me a misogynist.
 
Longo_2_guns said:
It doesn't matter if it's her or someone like Jack Thompson, anyone who uses poorly made, cherrypicked arguments to claim that this hobby is bad and makes bad people is my enemy. Simple as that.

Of course, since this is in the Gamergate thread, no one is actually going to read this. But still.

I care Longo... I care.. and also agree.

Longo_2_guns said:
That said, in the Colbert Report, I couldn't tell if she actually couldn't name three games or if that was a satire on Colbert's part. Because it looked to me like she was evading a softball question.

I don't know about that. I think she wisely avoided calling out those games because even if you were a con man you'd be able to fake enough knowledge to name three that agreed with your point of view.. i hope..

I don't want to post the InternetAristocrat's newest video because I don't want people to yell at me, but he saying that GG has substantially hurt Gawker, Kotaku, etc, but with AS on Colbert I think GG has had the opposite effect for those sites.
 
UrbanMasque said:
but he saying that GG has substantially hurt Gawker, Kotaku, etc,
They honestly haven't so much as Gawker totally shot themselves in the foot. The editor of Gawker started posting about how they needed to "bring back bullying" against nerds. So Adobe pulled advertising from them and following the head of Gawker Media's rant about it, others followed suit.

Basically, what should be no surprise to anyone, Gawker is run by idiots.
 
Edit: I was feeling self-righteous and wrote a lot of words again, oops.

That is one of my main problems with GG and the way people act in general discourse now-a-days. You see it in politics and a lot of other places now. It's that discussing things has broken down to the point where trying to find a middle ground, trying to compromise, is seen as a weakness and is almost as bad as admitting defeat.

In the Gawker instance, they already forced an apology out of the guy who wrote the bullying tweet and an apology from one of their media director guys, but that isn't good enough for some of these people. They want them forced from their job over saying something stupid.

I see it time and time again in the news, someone says or writes something stupid and a twitter mob forms and tries to ruin them.

It's these young twenty-somethings that think writing something on a piece of paper and snapping a pic of it with their iphone and posting it to a hashtag on twitter means fuck all in the real world. That's not activism, that's jerking off in front of a mirror.

What happened to that Kony thing? How many girls did they bring back? That cancel Colbert thing sure worked out well. GG is just the latest in a line of the same bullshit of wrangling up a posse and riding out against whatever offended you and trying to remove it rather than trying to counter it productively. They aren't trying to reform anything, they are just trying to burn it all down.

And for what? For all the millions of tweets and the dozens and dozens of articles about it, for the damage that was caused to people, mentally and monetarily, what was accomplished? They got a couple of glorified bloggers to have to disclose that they are writing about their friends shitty twine game that almost no one will ever play? Gee, what an amazing fucking victory.

While the AAA's continue on with business as usual fucking us over with day 1 DLC already on the disc, DRM, microtransactions out the ass, seasons passes, rushed, broken game launches that require extensive patching, games that score 7 to 10 almost regardless of quality (I bought a game in 2009 that was broken on release that required a patch to even launch and it was getting 9/10 all over the place, even on this site here, which finally compelled me to write my own review on it)

In regards to Jack Thompson, he was more of a threat than AS is. He was actively going out and trying to sue people over stuff. AS made a couple of youtube videos. Her channel had/has less than 200k subscribers, where as popular youtube gamers have millions. Who do you think has the larger influence? If all those young rage monsters would have just ignored her rather than obsess over her, nobody would know who she was outside of her small group of followers.

I was sympathetic to the GG people at first, but as I've followed it these past few months, I've grown further and further away from it because these people are too focused on the small fish, a few no names, small timers and individuals rather than the big money and big companies where the real problems are.
 
$24 a hour if she worked 40 hours a week. Crazy how social manipulators can make so much money and from so many different sources.
 
To play devils advocate, why do you care at all how people make their money? It seems a bit odd to break down her earnings and insinuate that she somehow manipulated events to make more money.

Do you guys realize how you sound?

She was pretty much unknown to the mainstream and a bunch of angry kids on the internet got her far more backers than she would've managed on her own and now people are angry that angry people made her more money cause she doesn't deserve it or something?

It's all rather hilarious. I'm not a religious person but some of you need to stop coveting your neighbors shit or however that went.

Do they still teach this in school? I was taught this in grade school and it changed how I saw the world around me:

Newton's 3rd Law
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction

In this context: The more hate she gets, the more support she gets.

Class dismissed.

Instead of bitching about it, do like links said and make your own pages and see how much you can get.
 
There is nothing wrong with gawking at how much money people make just like people gawk at PEWDIEPIE making 4 million dollars a year. That is about $2083 a hour if he worked 40 hours a week.
 
C_nate said:
Instead of bitching about it, do like links said and make your own pages and see how much you can get.

I doubt anyone will give me money so I write half-decent articles on the side along with my teaching job, just to have a supplemental income for a while.

Not to mention I got to give people quality and support, kind of like sponsorships and what not, if I do this right.
 
Sourdeez said:
There is nothing wrong with gawking at how much money people make just like people gawk at PEWDIEPIE making 4 million dollars a year. That is about $2083 a hour if he worked 40 hours a week.

Of course there is nothing wrong with that. Out of curiosity though, is he also a "social manipulator"?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
16,731
Messages
270,928
Members
97,760
Latest member
flintinsects
Top