With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example
calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device
GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think
40k is its own world, and it has deep roots. I really enjoyed Ian Watson's take in particular, which is more subversive of authority than supportive of it. I think 40k will survive.
I'd worry much more about keeping racism, sexism, and the internet troll attitude out of real-life communities. Trump has not set a high bar for courteous behaviour.
GW, being a British company, and mostly adverse to being on the internet, is probably unaware of the activities and thusly doesn't care.
Free Speech doesn't necessarily cover the use of someone else's IP, however, to say whatever it is you're going to say. Really depends on the specifics of when/how/where it is used, though.
LightKing wrote: With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example
calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device
GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think
I think GW has taken the appropriate response to this. Ignore it. The "alt right" (Which consists of people from all walks of life) as you call them, have made memes & references to pretty much every fan fiction out there. If there are potential customers put off from purchasing 40k products as a result of being triggered by an image of the emperor with Trumps face on it... they are in for a rough life.
Or another idea maybe not take something so seriously that's meant to be a joke? This Thread and topic is pretty ridiculous if you ask me and to be honest I've seen more violent and hate come from the left then the right over the course of this election.
Saw one of him in a commissar uniform titled filthy xenos. Made me laugh.
But yeah all GW can realistically do (if they are even bothered/care) is to say we dont endorse our IP being associated with etc.
I forsee exactly zero communication from them on this (and cant say I really blame them tbh).
I find it kind of funny that people would actually compare Trump with the emperor to SUPPORT him. But I'm a Chaosplayer so what do I know about what's desirable about the imperium
The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
Hmm, yeah. Now we cant make Trump jokes in 40K anymore because you're triggered? Seriously what the hell happened to some peoples sense of humor. Did it commit suicide... or it wasn't there in the first place and they faked the entire time.
Last time I checked we were not Spain... trying to ban Memes and internet jokes.
Anyway... if Trump was portrayed as the Emperor... wouldn't it mean he'll get killed... by someone he knows well...
Seriously what the hell happened to some peoples sense of humor. Did it commit suicide... or it wasn't there in the first place and they faked the entire time.
MarsNZ wrote:The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
This.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote:Anyway... if Trump was portrayed as the Emperor... wouldn't it mean he'll get killed... by someone he knows well...
I guess Pence would be Horus in that scenario but he's a pretty solid guy. (although that's probably what the emperor said...)
The Grumpy Eldar wrote:Anyway... if Trump was portrayed as the Emperor... wouldn't it mean he'll get killed... by someone he knows well...
I guess Pence would be Horus in that scenario but he's a pretty solid guy. (although that's probably what the emperor said...)
Lol.. the guy who doesn't believe in science. Thinks women should carry dead fetuses to term. And is all around a bigger and worse racists, sexist, monster than Trump could hope to be.
Lol.. the guy who doesn't believe in science. Thinks women should carry dead fetuses to term. And is all around a bigger and worse racists, sexist, monster than Trump could hope to be.
Yup. Pence is a pretty solid guy.
Not someone who is a high risk of leading a coup though
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Hmm, yeah. Now we cant make Trump jokes in 40K anymore because you're triggered? Seriously what the hell happened to some peoples sense of humor. Did it commit suicide... or it wasn't there in the first place and they faked the entire time.
Last time I checked we were not Spain... trying to ban Memes and internet jokes.
Anyway... if Trump was portrayed as the Emperor... wouldn't it mean he'll get killed... by someone he knows well...
Seriously what the hell happened to some peoples sense of humor. Did it commit suicide... or it wasn't there in the first place and they faked the entire time.
Yes.
Ehh I googled some photos, they are kind of funny.
Yes.
The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
MarsNZ wrote:The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
Scott-S6 wrote:
MarsNZ wrote:The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
Two new people for my ignore list.
I suggest you actually educate yourselves before talking about the alt-right, because not a single goddamned thing you said is correct.
MarsNZ wrote:The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
Scott-S6 wrote:
MarsNZ wrote:The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
Two new people for my ignore list.
I suggest you actually educate yourselves before talking about the alt-right, because not a single goddamned thing you said is correct.
I don't have a dog in this fight.
I don't actually give a feth that people are making images about trump being the empy.
On the other I find it absolutely hilarious to see how the left is the new right
Pouncey wrote: Are you sure it's Trump supporters who are equating Trump to Imperium stuff?
Given the lore about WH40k's Imperium, shouldn't it be people who hate Trump that are making these references?
The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.
However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.
This Thread Summed up in a sentence
"OP is Triggered by People posting memes of Trump as the Emperor, and believes GW should do something to stop this"
I thought the whole God Emperor thing was a Dune reference. Shows what I know...
Kanluwen wrote: The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.
However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.
I'm pretty sure that "alt-right" is a derogatory label that is applied to groups (and often, quite liberal groups), not something that anybody self-identifies as. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they co-opt fandoms, but instead are actual existing members of a fandom that are protesting the co-opting of their fandom by what they see as cultural authoritarians. I know that was the case with GamerGate, Sad Puppies, and comic book fans who like Spider-woman's butt.
Yeah, racists are friggin' hilarious.
I know you are being sarcastic, but some of the funniest jokes I've ever heard were racist as crap.
The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.
This is one of the most absurd claims by the perpetually offended re: the `alt-right`
Saying a certain group is "known for coopting memes" is like saying a certain group is "known for breathing" or "known for requiring water to survive", using it as a defining feature is spastic. There is no conspiratorial group out there churning out memes to take over the world. Memes were huge in internet culture long before the perpetually offended even discovered the internet, same with `trolls` who are the `new danger` posed by evil internet culture.
Edit: Just noticed my previous post triggered this guy into ignoring me. That's pretty much par for the course with these social authoritarians when they venture out of the echo chamber and have to endure reality.
The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.
This is one of the most absurd claims by the perpetually offended re: the `alt-right`
And one of the most absurd claims is the one made by you earlier, that the alt-right is "just a label used by the perpetually offended".
Saying a certain group is "known for coopting memes" is like saying a certain group is "known for breathing" or "known for requiring water to survive", using it as a defining feature is spastic. There is no conspiratorial group out there churning out memes to take over the world. Memes were huge in internet culture long before the perpetually offended even discovered the internet, same with `trolls` who are the `new danger` posed by evil internet culture.
However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.
I'm pretty sure that "alt-right" is a derogatory label that is applied to groups (and often, quite liberal groups), not something that anybody self-identifies as.
The alt-right is a self-identified label to differentiate themselves from the traditional right-wing in the US. The alternative right is less about free markets and Christian values (they aren't conservatives or libertarians) and more about the race science that the traditional right has abandoned. If there is an issue with the term it's simply that "white nationalists" and "neo-nazis" already existed and were fairly accurate.
So when you claimed to ignore me it was just hot air huh. Why am I not surprised. I guess it's easier than actually providing any sort of evidence to the argument that you don't even have.
MarsNZ wrote: So when you claimed to ignore me it was just hot air huh. Why am I not surprised. I guess it's easier than actually providing any sort of evidence to the argument that you don't even have.
I'm not the person making the claims that the alt-right is simply a label used by the "perpetually offended", now am I?
You want to make an argument for that, provide the evidence.
You actually are on Ignore, just FYI. Thread previews however still show ignored posts.
No not at all its a blatant breach of their copyright and or trademarks depending on how they phrase it and what immages they use. Its up to GW if they want to let it go or focus more attention at it. I for sure haven't a single one of them but this might change if it hits the news, and stuff like this is never good for the company when it hits the news.
Sqorgar wrote: I thought the whole God Emperor thing was a Dune reference. Shows what I know...
Kanluwen wrote: The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.
However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.
I'm pretty sure that "alt-right" is a derogatory label that is applied to groups (and often, quite liberal groups), not something that anybody self-identifies as. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they co-opt fandoms, but instead are actual existing members of a fandom that are protesting the co-opting of their fandom by what they see as cultural authoritarians. I know that was the case with GamerGate, Sad Puppies, and comic book fans who like Spider-woman's butt.
Yeah, racists are friggin' hilarious.
I know you are being sarcastic, but some of the funniest jokes I've ever heard were racist as crap.
No, the alt-right is not liberal. They often espouse white nationalist and supremacist views, which are the complete opposite of liberalism.
Gamergate wasn't about cultural authoritarianism, except on the part of the gamergaters who took any suggestion that games could be more inclusive to be a personal attack on themselves and they responded with harassment.
LightKing wrote: With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example
calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device
GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think
Its not from 40K. 40K stole it from the Dune series.
MarsNZ wrote: The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.
Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.
I'm OK with the alt-right label, until people attempt to equate it with homophobia / white nationalism / neo-Nazism. Breitbart, arguably the voice of the alt-right, has gay, Jewish, and Muslim writers.
Nationalist, yes. Anti-establishment? Yes. Anti-PC? Yes. White Nationalist? taylorswiftlolok.gif
LightKing wrote: With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example
calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device
GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think
Its not from 40K. 40K stole it from the Dune series.
Welp there goes the copy-write infringement argument.
Rosebuddy wrote:The alt-right is a self-identified label to differentiate themselves from the traditional right-wing in the US. The alternative right is less about free markets and Christian values (they aren't conservatives or libertarians) and more about the race science that the traditional right has abandoned. If there is an issue with the term it's simply that "white nationalists" and "neo-nazis" already existed and were fairly accurate.
Absolutely not. The alt-right started with GamerGate, which was initially a response to cultural authoritarianism. They'll say that it was about journalistic integrity, which it was, but it was more about how gaming journalists were collectively pushing certain progressive agendas - including the near universal labeling of GamerGate as harassers and white supremacists (both untrue). This led to strange bedfellows as GamerGate started allying itself with anti-cultural authoritarians such as Christina Hoff Sommers (writer of "Who Stole Feminism?") and Breitbart professional troll, Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo and Sommers would often tour college campuses giving controversial talks against progressivism (and feminism in particular) which were frequently met with bomb threats and protests. Milo used this platform, along with Breitbart, to gain increasing fame. Any time there was any "social justice" issues out there, like Sad Puppies or Spider-woman's butt, GamerGate and Milo would ultimately ally with them, creating a sort of social movement against cultural authoritarianism. That movement also largely gained steam with Trump's supporters (who was a Milo-like figure, unlike the much more authoritarian Hillary, who used paid trolls to manipulate online discussions), and everything just sort of got mushed together into one big pejorative label, the alt-right. That label was never something that was self identified was, and it largely came into popularity due to one of Hillary's speeches condemning the alt-right.
But make no mistake. The people that are called the alt-right are not white supremacists or racist or misogynists or anything of the sort. That is the cultural authoritarianism using labels to denigrate and dismiss their viewpoints without having to address them. That's why GamerGate started the #NotYourShield hashtag, to fight against the idea that GamerGate was just a bunch of white men. Last year, one of the authors behind Sad Puppies had to explain that he wasn't racist and that, in fact, he was married to a black woman. It's a label and an unfair one that is wholly inaccurate and frankly, abusive.
I don't count myself among these various movements personally, though I required a bit more nuance in my discussions than "GamerGate is a bunch of sexist white males" and actually went and looked at both sides of the story. I found that GamerGate was unfairly criticized for things they didn't do or believe, and since then have come to suspect anyone who throws out morality labels on their opponents rather than attempting to actually discuss and debate with them.
A Town Called Malus wrote:No, the alt-right is not liberal. They often espouse white nationalist and supremacist views, which are the complete opposite of liberalism.
Actually, many of them are extremely liberal. But they are not progressive, or maybe don't put as much weight on their progressive attitudes as some people would like. Take the whole concept of transgendered people being able to use whatever bathroom they identify with. Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to argue both for and against that idea, and it may be that someone is for it, but understands that the issue is socially complicated and require nuance. Anyone attempting to say, "woah, let's back up a second and think about this" is instantly labeled as transphobic. Anything short of complete and total support for the idea, without exception, is labeled as transphobic. Similarly, having a nuanced views on immigration, the refuge crisis, or radical islam can get you labeled as a white supremacist, even when you largely agree on the broad strokes, but disagree in the implementation.
Honestly, it is this attempt to morally label their opponents as racists that caused things like GamerGate and the Trump presidency to happen in the first place, and you'd think by now, people would say, "geez, maybe pissing off people by calling them racist isn't working" - but instead, they just say, "No, we just haven't called them racist enough."
Gamergate wasn't about cultural authoritarianism, except on the part of the gamergaters who took any suggestion that games could be more inclusive to be a personal attack on themselves and they responded with harassment.
Oh, GamerGate was about cultural authoritarianism. I guarantee it. I watched it happen. It is why they latched on to Milo. What better way to fight cultural authoritarianism than with a cultural anarchist?
MarsNZ wrote: The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda.
Literally look at their "what is th alt right" section.
Another core principle of the Alt-Right is Identitarianism. Identitarianism is the prioritization of social identity, regardless of political persuasion. Thus, the Alt-Right promotes White Identity and White Nationalism.
MarsNZ wrote: The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians
Nope. You're completely wrong there. "Alternative right" was first used by Paul Gottfried, of the new hard right conservative movement that he considered himself a part of, in 2008. Through 2009 the descriptor was increasingly used, eventually becoming 'alt right' as the broad descriptor the overall movement gave to itself. It wasn't until years later that anyone outside of the movement, on the left or right, even noticed the existance of these crazies, until all of a sudden people noticed the co-ordinated troll campaigns they were running on-line. Even then they remained a curiosity until they started playing an out-sized role in the campaign of a US presidential candidate. Then people notice what they were calling themselves.
Seriously, if you're going to play the role of tribal warrior, know the basic details of your own tribe.
Sqorgar wrote: Absolutely not. The alt-right started with GamerGate, which was initially a response to cultural authoritarianism.
Gamergate started because a guy whipped up a hate mob against his ex. It flared up because people had begun analysing what videogames mean and say, and a lot of nerds want games to be art so that they can feel special for spending so much time on them but don't want to apply the critical models that films and books have developed. Games journalism is deeply corrupt but it has been so for a long time and no movement for ethics in games journalism happened until a woman could be harassed online for months over it. It's the same old culture war that finally rolled into videogames.
This stuff about "cultural authoritarianism" is a later construct.
Sqorgar wrote: Take the whole concept of transgendered people being able to use whatever bathroom they identify with. Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to argue both for and against that idea, and it may be that someone is for it, but understands that the issue is socially complicated and require nuance. Anyone attempting to say, "woah, let's back up a second and think about this" is instantly labeled as transphobic. Anything short of complete and total support for the idea, without exception, is labeled as transphobic. Similarly, having a nuanced views on immigration, the refuge crisis, or radical islam can get you labeled as a white supremacist, even when you largely agree on the broad strokes, but disagree in the implementation.
There isn't very much thinking that actually needs to be done, though. A woman can use a toilet designated for women, a man can use a toilet designated for men. Problem solved. The "nuanced views" that you talk about are, in my experience, not actually very nuanced or good at all. A nuanced view on the refugee crisis would mean considering how to help, what sacrifices would have to be made and how to turn welcoming refugees into a strength but for some people "nuanced views" means that we should think long and hard about whether Syrians deserve to drown in the Mediterranean. It's such a low level of debate that it isn't useful and when someone insists on sticking to this level time and time again the question must be raised whether it's meant in good faith.
An actual nuanced view of militant Islamic extremists would include an understanding of these groups as political forces, an understanding of the economics and politics of the regions involved, where they recruit from, why it is that they exist now rather than at any other time and so on and so on. But the "nuanced view" is that Muslims kill because it's what the Koran says.
I have literally never seen this subreddit before, and I doubt very much that it represents the core of what people call the alt-right. In fact, according to the metrics for the sub, it didn't have but a handful of subscribers until literally the day of Hillary's Alt-Right speech. Meanwhile, GamerGate has 60,000 subscribers and The_Donald has 295,000 subscribers. That's a troll subreddit.
Xenomancers wrote: Who is they? who are they grouped around? how can you make the claim that all alt-right is racist?
Because they repeat loads of racist myths. I mean, that's the simplest way to figure out if someone or some group is racist - do they say loads of racist stuff? When the answer is yes, they're racist..
Now, you may be really keen to jump in with some quote or other from some lefty. I'm gonna go with Hillary Clinton's super-predator thing, or maybe the fact that Robert Byrd was in the KKK 60 years ago. You go ahead and do that if you want. But you'll be missing a key thing - every group will have racists, and every person will have moments in their life when they did something racist.
A group is racist in its totality when racism a key aspect of the whole, and that's the case with the alt-right. The movement itself is poorly organised, and contradictory on almost every other subject outside of race (on economics there's about six different kinds of stupid all fighting each other). The only political issue that has any consistency is racism - take that out of the alt-right and there'd just be a bunch of chuckleheads spamming memes and patting themselves on the back for being non-PC.. ie they'd be indistinguishable from any 14 year old on the internet. But it is through racism that there is some kind unification to the movement.
I have literally never seen this subreddit before, and I doubt very much that it represents the core of what people call the alt-right. In fact, according to the metrics for the sub, it didn't have but a handful of subscribers until literally the day of Hillary's Alt-Right speech. Meanwhile, GamerGate has 60,000 subscribers and The_Donald has 295,000 subscribers. That's a troll subreddit.
GamerGate is no the alt-right. Neither is the Donald Trump subreddit. You can support gamer-gate or Donald Trump without being alt-right. The reason it just grew is that until very recent, the alt-right was basically unknown as a movement. It has existed as a movement for a while (as seb pointed out), even that subreddit is 6 years old.
If your argument for "the alt right isn't racist" is "Those aren't REALLY the alt-right!" you might have a problem there.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.
Who is they? who are they grouped around? how can you make the claim that all alt-right is racist?
Because the alt-right guys admit as much. Remember alt-right =/= conservative. They are a group dedicated to white nationalism.
Complete and utter BS.
How so? The alt-right, are a fringe movement dedicated to white nationalism. I've provided proof of this (and can certainly get more if needed). Where is your proof that they aren't?
Remember, Republican =/= atl-right. Conservative =/= alt-right. Republican =/= alt right. They are a different group entirely. There is some overlap, but in the same way that Marxist-Lenninst overlap the Democrats. An extremest fringe.
Rosebuddy wrote: Gamergate started because a guy whipped up a hate mob against his ex.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Zoey Quinn was already a controversial figure in the game industry, and her Depression Quest game represented the exact sort of social justice non-game crap that a lot of people felt were unfairly getting promoted by games journalist. The five guys thing did two things. First, it proved that Quinn was every bit the terrible person that everybody already suspected her of being, and second, it accused her of sleeping with a game journalist who was assumed to be giving her preferential treatment. To a group of gamers who thought social justice warriors were terrible people and that game journalists were unfairly helping them, it was a bit of a smoking gun - in theory, though I think in practice it didn't work out like that. Kotaku's inability to apologize and then go on to cover for their journalist stoked the fires.
It flared up because people had begun analysing what videogames mean and say, and a lot of nerds want games to be art so that they can feel special for spending so much time on them but don't want to apply the critical models that films and books have developed.
It flared up because the day after the term GamerGate was coined by Adam Baldwin, a dozen or so articles were posted declaring gamers to be dead. That direct assault on the gamer identity by institutions that should've been defending them is what caused GamerGate to flare up.
Sarkeesian, likewise, attacked the gamer identity through her critiques, and it felt very much at the time, to them, that gamers were being attacked for being socially awkward nerds - basically, that they were being bullied. Again. They made the mistake of thinking they could fight against Sarkeesian with rational debate on the content of her critiques, but were quickly labeled as misogynist harassers, and like I said before, calling people names isn't a real good way to win them over to your cause.
I need to go, but I'll address the rest of your comment what I get back.
It was, but not in the way that you describe. The original issue was one of integrity in gaming journalism, namely that Zoey Quinn had an affair with a games journalist who had written (a?) review(s?) about one of her games and then the industry closed ranks about the issue rather than combating it. As it turned out there wasn't a problem about influencing the review as the dates didn't match but by that point it was irrelevant as everything had become obscured by the mounds of gak that idiots had been throwing at each other (including death threats, posting people's home addresses and other such lovely behavior) and the integrity issue has long been forgotten.
I'm just here drinking liberal tears and laughing about the whole thing, then again it is not surprising. The left has shown that they are the ones who are intolerant, violent, racist ect. Keep it up, you're just insuring 4 more years of Emperor Trump
It was, but not in the way that you describe. The original issue was one of integrity in gaming journalism, namely that Zoey Quinn had an affair with a games journalist who had written (a?) review(s?) about one of her games and then the industry closed ranks about the issue rather than combating it. As it turned out there wasn't a problem about influencing the review as the dates didn't match but by that point it was irrelevant as everything had become obscured by the mounds of gak that idiots had been throwing at each other and the integrity issue has long been forgotten.
Yup. What could have been a good discussion on both sides (on the one hand, the issues with games journalism, and on the other, the sexism and portrayal of woman in a lot of games media, as well us gamers), but it turned into gak-flinging, because people can't admit that issues may have multiple facets to them.
It wasn't actually a review, it was "coverage". I think Grayson favorably referenced Depression Quest somewhere in one of his articles, about how ground breaking it or something.
Something like that anyway. Its been a while, and I don't care enough to look it up. The whole thing was a mess.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: It wasn't actually a review, it was "coverage". I think Grayson favorably referenced Depression Quest somewhere in one of his articles, about how ground breaking it or something.
Something like that anyway. Its been a while, and I don't care enough to look it up. The whole thing was a mess.
It wasn't even that. He mentioned it in an article about upcoming games.
MarsNZ wrote: This is one of the most absurd claims by the perpetually offended
So the alt-right is a meme created by the alt-right? I suppose that makes sense, but it's a bit of an odd statement for you to make.
Thanks for proving my point for me. I can always count on you to provide the logical gymnastics needed to tar everyone who disagrees with you as some kind of conspiratorial singular group of evil people. Even if it usually amounts to "I know you are but what am I"
Some racist used to refer to himself as Alternative Right, he's long been relegated where he belongs, irrelevancy. Now it's a term used by corporations such as Twitter to combat 'harrassment' - in other words censor opinions that don't follow victim narrative - as if the ignore and DCMA claim weren't already the most regularly mashed buttons by demagogues such as Sarkeesian, Ramsey and Dunham. If you claim Hillary lost for any other reason than 'white America' you're now 'alt-right'. When liberals who don't support morality policing reject being labeled by those that do they're by your own admission 'alt right' themselves.
Cries of 'coordinated trolling' and 'coopting memes' just shows that you're extremely naive and probably quite new to the internet outside of safe spaces like Buzzfeed and HuffPost.
The "alt-right" isn't a defined thing any more than BLM or OWS is. It's an online group of people with loosely shared cultural values.
I don't venture into their forums because I don't have a high tolerance for angry teenage boys all reposting the same "hilarious" memes and drinking libtard tears. Also all the "Lord Milo" and 'Emperor Trump" seems a bit like virtual fanboi fellatio to me.
But to say "all alt-right is X" is disingenuous. It a broad movement with no barrier to entry. You may as well say "Dakkadakka is a specific group of people whose members are all X."
Sqorgar wrote: represented the exact sort of social justice non-game crap that a lot of people felt were unfairly getting promoted by games journalist.
It's a game that attempts to show what living with depression is like. This is a topic that has been done in poetry, theatre, songs, films, books and comics for decades now. If a journalist thinks that this is a more important game than Medal of Duty 14 then it's kind of part of their job to bring this up and argue why.
This sentence is very revealing of what it's really about. Social justice? Same ol' culture war. Non-game? That's just trying to paint people as impostors and fakes. It turns out that interactive electronic media is a very broad category that has room for a lot of different expressions. Arguing that Depression Quest isn't a game is only marginally less dumb than arguing whether something is or isn't art. Yes, it's a game. Yes, it's art. Now can we get to the good part of talking about what a particular game does? That is, after all, the part that could actually advance the medium and our understanding of it.
The identity of a "gamer" is fundamentally a pretty bad one. It's that of a passive consumer of mass-produced media. People call themselves gamers and think they're so much better than those silly Reality TV Fans or Likers of Rap Music when the intellectual and emotional heights of videogames couldn't even reach to pinch the toes of literature. No matter how Kotaku feths up, the truth remains that building your identity around how much you've played Dark Souls is going to leave you with a very frail identity (and I say that as someone who has happily sunk over 600 hours into DS1 and DS2).
MarsNZ wrote: If you claim Hillary lost for any other reason than 'white America' you're now 'alt-right'. When liberals who don't support morality policing reject being labeled by those that do they're by your own admission 'alt right' themselves.
Cries of 'coordinated trolling' and 'coopting memes' just shows that you're extremely naive and probably quite new to the internet outside of safe spaces like Buzzfeed and HuffPost.
Clinton lost because she had nothing to offer, ran a campaign that was worse than Donald Trump's, was actively repulsive and had generally fallen to groupthink. Etc etc. Now, that out of the way, coordinated online efforts absolutely did happen. They have been a part of the Internet for a very long time because coordinated efforts to change public perception is as old as media itself and it's much easier to do it online since you don't need a printing press and official channels to reach people. White nationalists have absolutely been working very hard to get people to become white nationalists through spreading their message and increasing their acceptability. It would be absurd to claim that they are outside the fundamental political process.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.
Whatever. The left has been calling the right racists for decades now. They even called Captain Milktoast ROmney racist, while holding onto the likes of Al Sharpton.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.
Whatever. The left has been calling the right racists for decades now. They even called Captain Milktoast ROmney racist, while holding onto the likes of Al Sharpton.
Frazz, they are actively racist and push white nationalism. The alt-right are not the right wing. In fact they have very little to do with the repulbican party, with any sort of economic conservatism or even a lot of the moral conservatism not there at all. It's the racist who think the the normal right doesn't push their racist views. This is not trying to call of the the right wing racist, but a radical fringe group (who admits to being racist and pushing white nationalism) racist. If this was saying "the republican party is racist!" I'd be the first to call it out (because the republican party isn't racist). This is like calling the KKK racist.
Sqorgar wrote: To a group of gamers who thought social justice warriors were terrible people and that game journalists were unfairly helping them, it was a bit of a smoking gun...
See, and here's the part that shows how fething bonkers the gamergate thing was. I've gamed for more than 30 years, and never in all my time in gaming have I ever run in to a SJW, or a game made by a SJW, or someone analysing any game from SJW perspective. I know that such people are out there because I hear people complain about them all the damn time, but this is the same way that I know about those Japanese dating games where you're dating pigeons and whatever. The only way these things would impact my gaming is if I went out searching for these things, either because I liked that kind of thing, or because I have some reason to fight with these people.
Now here, by your own statement, we have a bunch of gamers who are hostile to SJWs. They want to fight these people. The simple answer here is just fething don't, you idiots. Play the games you like, read the reviews you can rely on (so don't read any reviews, basically), and have with your gaming. If you want to engage in weird little field of media analysis of games, do it because you have a contribution you want to make, not because there are some people contributing that you want to have a tribal war with.
But this thing where people go from playing games to crusading against random people in the gaming industry because they see games differently to themselves, well how fething strange is that.
Rosebuddy wrote: There isn't very much thinking that actually needs to be done, though. A woman can use a toilet designated for women, a man can use a toilet designated for men. Problem solved. The "nuanced views" that you talk about are, in my experience, not actually very nuanced or good at all.
See? That's what I was talking about. When you take these absolutist views and reject the very idea that there could be valid alternatives, that's when the whole authoritarianism thing comes in.
For this thing in particular, I think there are a lot of factors involved, and a lot of unintended results. For instance, once they started making laws about who should and shouldn't be using particular bathrooms, you ended up having people following androgynous women in the women's bathroom, demanding that they prove that they belong there. I don't recall that happening before. The very act of making a legal mandate created a moral divide over something that, honestly, should only really affect a very, very small percentage of the population. It's an unintended consequence, and to act without thoroughly exploring the ramifications of the moral and social cost of them is negligent. I want to be a good person and be kind to people that I think are well deserving of it, but I think that doing the right thing requires understanding how everybody is affected, not just the ones I agree with.
A nuanced view on the refugee crisis would mean considering how to help, what sacrifices would have to be made and how to turn welcoming refugees into a strength but for some people "nuanced views" means that we should think long and hard about whether Syrians deserve to drown in the Mediterranean. It's such a low level of debate that it isn't useful and when someone insists on sticking to this level time and time again the question must be raised whether it's meant in good faith.
There are some logistical issues with the Syrian refugees that means that how we help them is a much more difficult question to answer than whether we should help them. We absolutely should help those in need, but we need to be considerate of what we can sacrifice and what we shouldn't sacrifice. I think that for some, refusing to sacrifice anything is tantamount to racism, even when the things we refuse to sacrifice are fundamental to the functioning of our communities and government.
An actual nuanced view of militant Islamic extremists would include an understanding of these groups as political forces, an understanding of the economics and politics of the regions involved, where they recruit from, why it is that they exist now rather than at any other time and so on and so on. But the "nuanced view" is that Muslims kill because it's what the Koran says.
Well, it certainly does affect things. The reason why the extremists like to behead people is a misguided interpretation of scripture, and I'm not sure that you can argue that economics and politics are behind the murdering of cartoonists who draw Muhammad. I don't think you can ignore economics and politics, but I don't think you can ignore the Koran's contributions to religious fanaticism any more than I think you can ignore the Bible's influence on the coordinated attack on evolution by creationists.
gmaleron wrote: I'm just here drinking liberal tears and laughing about the whole thing, then again it is not surprising. The left has shown that they are the ones who are intolerant, violent, racist ect. Keep it up, you're just insuring 4 more years of Emperor Trump
I commented ages ago that support for Trump for some people seems entirely divorced from policy, or any of the actual, substantive realities of governing a country. Instead it's like it is about continuing a stupid internet fight in to the real world, where people who've taken offence against some SJW have now decided they can win that argument by supporting Trump in to the presidency, despite the fact that, you know, on a level of basic knowledge and policy Trump is comical disaster.
Here's that same thing again. It seems to come up a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: But to say "all alt-right is X" is disingenuous. It a broad movement with no barrier to entry. You may as well say "Dakkadakka is a specific group of people whose members are all X."
"Dakkadakka is a specific group of people whose members are generally interested in playing wargames, most being very familiar with GW wargames."
So not so hard. While a group with no barriers to entry might not tend towards greater variation, it is still likely that there will be consistent characteristics among most of its members. In the case of the alt-right there is clearly a consistent racism that runs throughout.
Rosebuddy wrote: It's a game that attempts to show what living with depression is like. This is a topic that has been done in poetry, theatre, songs, films, books and comics for decades now. If a journalist thinks that this is a more important game than Medal of Duty 14 then it's kind of part of their job to bring this up and argue why.
This sentence is very revealing of what it's really about. Social justice? Same ol' culture war. Non-game? That's just trying to paint people as impostors and fakes. It turns out that interactive electronic media is a very broad category that has room for a lot of different expressions. Arguing that Depression Quest isn't a game is only marginally less dumb than arguing whether something is or isn't art. Yes, it's a game. Yes, it's art. Now can we get to the good part of talking about what a particular game does? That is, after all, the part that could actually advance the medium and our understanding of it.
I have no problem with Depression Quest, honestly. I think Jason Rohrer and Jonathan Blow's pretentious interviews are better lightning rods for the arrogance of indie developers who like to just gak on gaming, all the while puffing themselves up as the second coming of Christ. But there's no doubt that there was this very exhausting run of pretentiousness in gaming journalism (especially at Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Polygon, but to a lesser extent Kotaku - both of whom liked to point out sexism at every opportunity) that alienated a lot of gamers who honestly just wanted to play games like Bayonetta as escapism. It's not that these pretentious games existed, but more how the popular gaming sites treated them (while also linking to their Patreon donations page, seeming more like advertisements than journalism). I think gamers were sick of it, and when they saw something that they thought proved that "fake gamers" were trying to push out "real gamers", it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I don't think Quinn or anything to do with the five guys letter proves anything of the sort, and I like gaming when there is a larger variety of experiences - even walking simulators and TWINE choose-your-own-adventures. However, I get the frustration that came from seeing gamers under attack for being gamers (the "gamers are dead" articles were insulting as hell), and I can easily see how they saw what they wanted to see in that five guys letter rather than what was actually there. The frustration was real, and the powder keg was ready to blow. If it wasn't Zoey Quinn, it would've been something else. GamerGate was always going to happen. It didn't really matter what started it.
The identity of a "gamer" is fundamentally a pretty bad one. It's that of a passive consumer of mass-produced media. People call themselves gamers and think they're so much better than those silly Reality TV Fans or Likers of Rap Music when the intellectual and emotional heights of videogames couldn't even reach to pinch the toes of literature. No matter how Kotaku feths up, the truth remains that building your identity around how much you've played Dark Souls is going to leave you with a very frail identity (and I say that as someone who has happily sunk over 600 hours into DS1 and DS2).
I disagree completely. I say this as a gamer and a professional video game developer. There's a reason people take some pride in being a gamer, and it isn't just how many hours of Dark Souls you've played. I don't think your assessment of being a "gamer" is honest or fair at all. I'm proud of being a gamer and I'm proud of the contributions I've personally made to video gaming. I worked hard for those accomplishments. I have a right to be proud of them. I've earned it.
And what, precisely, is a "gamer", then? What is the skill set? What is the creed? What are the deeds of gamers? A developer needs to take an active role in the medium but it should be telling that "gamer" isn't synonymous with "modder".
See? That's what I was talking about. When you take these absolutist views and reject the very idea that there could be valid alternatives, that's when the whole authoritarianism thing comes in.
There isn't a lot of backing up and thinking that needs to be done over the question of whether women or black people should be able to vote. How's that for authoritarianism. Some people do think that's a very tricky question but that's on them. That some people want to barge in and question the genitals or w/e of other people out of rampant fear and hatred of trans people is on them. Whether laws need to be made about it all and what shape those should take and how they should even be enforced is another matter. I'm fine with rejecting some points of view, because I have considered them and found them to be bad, and in practice you are too. You just finished typing up a post about "social justice non-game crap" so you don't have a lot of ground to stand on.
Sqorgar wrote: I don't think you can ignore economics and politics, but I don't think you can ignore the Koran's contributions to religious fanaticism any more than I think you can ignore the Bible's influence on the coordinated attack on evolution by creationists.
Religion just adds a little extra flavour to the substance. Religious scripture can obviously be interpreted and ignored in any way that anyone wants to and there isn't anything about any book of any kind that can simply compel someone to act in a certain way. The Islamic State didn't form from Al-Qaida in Iraq and then spread because of Islam. There were material factors at play that created a lot of people that wanted to have a right-wing religious militia and that allowed for this attempt. That's the sort of thing that happens when you blow countries up. Creationists could be from any religion that features a creation story. There just aren't many prominent non-Christian religions in the US.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yup. What could have been a good discussion on both sides (on the one hand, the issues with games journalism, and on the other, the sexism and portrayal of woman in a lot of games media, as well us gamers), but it turned into gak-flinging, because people can't admit that issues may have multiple facets to them.
The one singular defining thread that you find throughout the "alt-right" is that journalism isn't an unbiased spectator. They pick sides. And the thing about all these different alt-right bastions - GamerGate, Sad Puppies, Frank Cho, Trump - is that the journalists took the other side and used their influence to unfairly smear their opponents as sexists/racist/harassers and misrepresent their viewpoints to make them look worse. There was never going to be any honest debate on any of this stuff because they second you criticized a Sarkeesian video, you were labeled a sexist and banned from your gaming forum of choice. If the alt-right is anything, it is a group of exiles who were banned from their own communities for trying to have an honest discussion.
Sqorgar wrote: [ I think gamers were sick of it, and when they saw something that they thought proved that "fake gamers" were trying to push out "real gamers", it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
"Real" and "fake" gamers? Come on man. That's childish. It's like when I was arguing with my friends back in junior high about whether The Offspring was "real" punk or not. It's totally arbitrary nonsense.
But to say "all alt-right is X" is disingenuous. It a broad movement with no barrier to entry. You may as well say "Dakkadakka is a specific group of people whose members are all X."
This is exactly what I was thinking. The group is so disorganized and broad - how can you call it racist?
But to say "all alt-right is X" is disingenuous. It a broad movement with no barrier to entry. You may as well say "Dakkadakka is a specific group of people whose members are all X."
This is exactly what I was thinking. The group is so disorganized and broad - how can you call it racist?
As was just pointed out, the people on Dakkadakka are unified by an interest in tabletop games. It's a tabletop game forum. Painting models, making terrain, complaining, seeking strategic tips on marine-vs-marine matchups, cultivating decades-long enmities over which edition of DnD is superior (it's 4th btw), complaining... There are clearly identifying traits of the community even though people got started for different reasons.
Rosebuddy wrote: And what, precisely, is a "gamer", then? What is the skill set? What is the creed? What are the deeds of gamers? A developer needs to take an active role in the medium but it should be telling that "gamer" isn't synonymous with "modder".
A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff. It is someone who doesn't just enjoy gaming, but respects it, and respects the artists and artisans who make it. And, I think, gamers find comfort being around other gamers because a respect of gaming isn't not nearly as commonplace as it should be.
There isn't a lot of backing up and thinking that needs to be done over the question of whether women or black people should be able to vote.
Where are people trying to take away anybody's right to vote? No doubt that white nationalists exist and have been lumped into the alt-right (or vice versa), but I'm not aware of any coordinated campaigns to take away anybody's voting privileges?
That some people want to barge in and question the genitals or w/e of other people out of rampant fear and hatred of trans people is on them. Whether laws need to be made about it all and what shape those should take and how they should even be enforced is another matter. I'm fine with rejecting some points of view, because I have considered them and found them to be bad, and in practice you are too. You just finished typing up a post about "social justice non-game crap" so you don't have a lot of ground to stand on.
First, the "social justice non-game crap" was me trying to write from GamerGate's perspective (as I was describing GamerGate's viewpoints at the time). It is not my own perspective.
Second, I don't think you can make laws to force people to be less insecure and scared. You may think their viewpoints don't matter, but they are American citizens. They get to vote for the elected official that best represents their interest, and they have a right to affect how the government affects their lives. And if you think that passing laws that increase their paranoia and insecurity is productive just because you think they are donkey-caves, well, I have a Trump presidency for you to spend in quiet self reflection.
Religion just adds a little extra flavour to the substance.
I'm not sure you can separate the two. There's always dogma at the center of any extremism. I'm not sure you can say that the dogma created the extremism or that the extremism created the dogma. The two likely grew together, feeding off each other, and I don't think you can destroy one without destroying the other. I think some people are so afraid of attacking the Islamic faith and seeming like racists that they have convinced themselves that they can destroy the extremism without tackling the dogma, and I think that's misguided. It can't be done.
Sqorgar wrote: [ I think gamers were sick of it, and when they saw something that they thought proved that "fake gamers" were trying to push out "real gamers", it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
"Real" and "fake" gamers? Come on man. That's childish. It's like when I was arguing with my friends back in junior high about whether The Offspring was "real" punk or not. It's totally arbitrary nonsense.
Your parents have asked me to remind all you gamers-real or unreal-to put down the game device, get a job, and move out of the house you lazy bums.
A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff.
A gamer is someone who NEEDS TO GET A FREAKING JOB. -signed-every generation before you.
But to say "all alt-right is X" is disingenuous. It a broad movement with no barrier to entry. You may as well say "Dakkadakka is a specific group of people whose members are all X."
This is exactly what I was thinking. The group is so disorganized and broad - how can you call it racist?
As was just pointed out, the people on Dakkadakka are unified by an interest in tabletop games. It's a tabletop game forum. Painting models, making terrain, complaining, seeking strategic tips on marine-vs-marine matchups, cultivating decades-long enmities over which edition of DnD is superior (it's 4th btw), complaining... There are clearly identifying traits of the community even though people got started for different reasons.
Well sure, but there are many and varied reasons to come here. Someone may only be here for painting tips and never played a game in their life. We have a video games forum, that's not really in the realm of toy soldier mans at all. MtG and similar.
So while there are general traits one can apply to the stereotypical Dakkanaught, one cannot take a list of Dakka members and say "These people are all tabletop gamers."
Sqorgar wrote: [ I think gamers were sick of it, and when they saw something that they thought proved that "fake gamers" were trying to push out "real gamers", it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
"Real" and "fake" gamers? Come on man. That's childish. It's like when I was arguing with my friends back in junior high about whether The Offspring was "real" punk or not. It's totally arbitrary nonsense.
Your parents have asked me to remind all you gamers-real or unreal-to put down the game device, get a job, and move out of the house you lazy bums.
A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff.
A gamer is someone who NEEDS TO GET A FREAKING JOB.
-signed-every generation before you.
Gamer with a job here, I live on my own, oh guide, wise old bastard.
Sqorgar wrote: A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff. It is someone who doesn't just enjoy gaming, but respects it, and respects the artists and artisans who make it. And, I think, gamers find comfort being around other gamers because a respect of gaming isn't not nearly as commonplace as it should be.
So what is the gaming equivalent to the Grapes of Wrath? Guernica? One Hundred Years of Solitude? Come and See? Which games tackle the impossibility of faith in a silent universe? Oh wait, it's the "social justice non-game crap" that does that. Not Pong, Doom, Super Mario, Dead or Alive (volleyball and non), Madden or whatever else that is held up as a real game for real gamers. That Dragon, Cancer had its Steam forum page flooded with formulaic trolling by representatives of "real gaming" precisely because it handled faith in trying times. There hasn't been much respect for videogames because the medium is hard to understand, hard to make and most of it doesn't have very high ambitions. The great games have mostly been great at delivering an experience rather than doing anything to make you understand the world better. A dazzling piece of escapism deserves understanding and praise in its own way but it's hard to make good art without being about something and challenging people.
Sqorgar wrote: A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff. It is someone who doesn't just enjoy gaming, but respects it, and respects the artists and artisans who make it. And, I think, gamers find comfort being around other gamers because a respect of gaming isn't not nearly as commonplace as it should be.
So what is the gaming equivalent to the Grapes of Wrath? Guernica? One Hundred Years of Solitude? Come and See? Which games tackle the impossibility of faith in a silent universe? Oh wait, it's the "social justice non-game crap" that does that. Not Pong, Doom, Super Mario, Dead or Alive (volleyball and non), Madden or whatever else that is held up as a real game for real gamers. That Dragon, Cancer had its Steam forum page flooded with formulaic trolling by representatives of "real gaming" precisely because it handled faith in trying times. There hasn't been much respect for videogames because the medium is hard to understand, hard to make and most of it doesn't have very high ambitions. The great games have mostly been great at delivering an experience rather than doing anything to make you understand the world better. A dazzling piece of escapism deserves understanding and praise in its own way but it's hard to make good art without being about something and challenging people.
I'm just a filthy console peasant so my choice is rather limited, but I definitely felt real feels about the hard, selfish choices made while playing through The Last of Us, similar to the feels I got from The Winter of Our Discontent.
For a slightly more constructive and less-off-topic post than my last one in here, I'd like to make one quick note that seems to get overlooked when people get in the is-the-alt-right-racist/is-Gamergate-misogynist/do-the-Sad-Puppies-need-to-stack-votes-to-win mudpit; it's something that's become abundantly clear with taking a look at the post-election. Not everyone who voted for Trump is a screaming bigot. Sometimes people really do want better journalism to cover video games. Maybe someone really wants to bring attention to a novel that got overlooked.
But as long as they associate themselves with the people that want a Muslim database, or the people sending rape threats and publishing addresses, or whatever drivel was coming out of Vox Day's keyboard...as long as they march under the same banner...that's tacit endorsement. Not everyone who voted for Trump was a racist, but everyone who voted for Trump found having a racist in the White House acceptable. If people don't want 'alt-right' to represent racism, then they need to do something about it.
Spinner wrote: For a slightly more constructive and less-off-topic post than my last one in here, I'd like to make one quick note that seems to get overlooked when people get in the is-the-alt-right-racist/is-Gamergate-misogynist/do-the-Sad-Puppies-need-to-stack-votes-to-win mudpit; it's something that's become abundantly clear with taking a look at the post-election. Not everyone who voted for Trump is a screaming bigot. Sometimes people really do want better journalism to cover video games. Maybe someone really wants to bring attention to a novel that got overlooked.
But as long as they associate themselves with the people that want a Muslim database, or the people sending rape threats and publishing addresses, or whatever drivel was coming out of Vox Day's keyboard...as long as they march under the same banner...that's tacit endorsement. Not everyone who voted for Trump was a racist, but everyone who voted for Trump found having a racist in the White House acceptable. If people don't want 'alt-right' to represent racism, then they need to do something about it.
What do you want us to do? Aside from not being a bigot, I'm not sure what actions items would improve peoples' understanding.
Spinner wrote: For a slightly more constructive and less-off-topic post than my last one in here, I'd like to make one quick note that seems to get overlooked when people get in the is-the-alt-right-racist/is-Gamergate-misogynist/do-the-Sad-Puppies-need-to-stack-votes-to-win mudpit; it's something that's become abundantly clear with taking a look at the post-election. Not everyone who voted for Trump is a screaming bigot. Sometimes people really do want better journalism to cover video games. Maybe someone really wants to bring attention to a novel that got overlooked.
But as long as they associate themselves with the people that want a Muslim database, or the people sending rape threats and publishing addresses, or whatever drivel was coming out of Vox Day's keyboard...as long as they march under the same banner...that's tacit endorsement. Not everyone who voted for Trump was a racist, but everyone who voted for Trump found having a racist in the White House acceptable. If people don't want 'alt-right' to represent racism, then they need to do something about it.
What do you want us to do? Aside from not being a bigot, I'm not sure what actions items would improve peoples' understanding.
Apart from have a good, long think over whether or not you want yourself to be represented by a term that the crazy racist people are flocking to?
It's a tough question. The obvious answer is 'find a new term', although I'm assuming that you don't find that acceptable. Like it or not, though, as things stand, alt-right means that big old 'make America white again' swastika graffiti, and saying 'of course it means something different' without addressing the screaming racists does nothing to change that perception.
So what is the gaming equivalent to the Grapes of Wrath? Guernica? One Hundred Years of Solitude? Come and See? Which games tackle the impossibility of faith in a silent universe?
Gaming is a different media form, completely unlike more traditional narratives. There are a few RPGs (specifically Planescape: Torment) and interactive fiction (Mind Forever Voyaging) which tackle subject matter like that well, but for the most part, I don't think that's what games do well. If they challenge narrative media at all, it is usually when it emulates them to well - though even then, the interactive aspect of gaming can surprise and contribute to the experience in new and unique ways, such as when you enter Mexico in Red Dead Redemption or playing The Kitchen in VR or going through a dialogue tree in The Secret of Monkey Island.
But I think that when games are truly special, they are something that can't be done in other media - such as online communities in massively multiplayer games. The nature of community, government, and even self are challenged in a format where you can be anything, do anything, and understanding in that sort of social playground contributes to our understanding of identity and belonging in the real world. It is through play that we experiment and learn, create and design. Something like Minecraft is a game, and yet it is a tool of expression - but so is Pokemon or Magic the Gathering. Books can have a sense of adventure, but it is only in a game that you can explore for yourself.
Honestly, I think the gameplay is what sets games apart from more traditional narratives, and while I think emulating other narrative media is possible to be successful at, a truly successful game is one that utilizes the interactive medium to its fullest.
A dazzling piece of escapism deserves understanding and praise in its own way but it's hard to make good art without being about something and challenging people.
Not sure I agree. Gaming isn't just about escapism. There is something intellectual about interacting with a new and unfamiliar system, and I think we can appreciate the beauty of its design without it having to be something relatable.
Sqorgar wrote: A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff. It is someone who doesn't just enjoy gaming, but respects it, and respects the artists and artisans who make it. And, I think, gamers find comfort being around other gamers because a respect of gaming isn't not nearly as commonplace as it should be.
So what is the gaming equivalent to the Grapes of Wrath? Guernica? One Hundred Years of Solitude? Come and See? Which games tackle the impossibility of faith in a silent universe? Oh wait, it's the "social justice non-game crap" that does that. Not Pong, Doom, Super Mario, Dead or Alive (volleyball and non), Madden or whatever else that is held up as a real game for real gamers.
I take it you haven't heard of silent hill, nor the (early) fallout games, nor planescape torment. Those are games; there's rules to be followed (the game's programming), actions to be made (whatever the player does), as well as win / lose conditions (game over / YOU DIED / *You can no longer proceed in the game due to the action you took*). Btw, the Dark Souls lose condition is a curious one; its not so much dying that's the fail state, but you giving up due to dying repeatably. It kind of ties in with the theme of hollowing out. Dying is just a fail state that impedes progress. Giving up is the true game over.
More recently there was Undertale. I never played that one, but it there were some aspects of it that looked intriguing.
Sqorgar wrote: Books can have a sense of adventure, but it is only in a game that you can explore for yourself.
You could always write a story. Then the exploration wouldn't have to be limited by what the developers wrote into the code.
I agree that games focusing on the language of interaction have a good shot at advancing the medium but the biggest problem there is the language itself. Controllers are pretty alien devices for a lot of people. This limits approachability further beyond requiring specific, extra advanced machines. Not a lot of people are going to have to skip a number of major new books just because their physical dimensions are wrong. One game I think does a pretty good job of both expressing itself through interaction and keeping it simple is Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons but I feel there's even more that can be done. Videogames have the major physical issue of the exact device used to interact with them. It's going to require a lot of thinking outside the box to even begin handling that and that's part of why the whole Gamergate movement was so damaging for the medium. Driving away everyone who doesn't have the same understanding of what a game is and should be can only lead to stagnation.
Sqorgar wrote: A gamer is like an art connoisseur or a bibliophile or a movie buff. It is someone who doesn't just enjoy gaming, but respects it, and respects the artists and artisans who make it. And, I think, gamers find comfort being around other gamers because a respect of gaming isn't not nearly as commonplace as it should be.
So what is the gaming equivalent to the Grapes of Wrath? Guernica? One Hundred Years of Solitude? Come and See? Which games tackle the impossibility of faith in a silent universe? Oh wait, it's the "social justice non-game crap" that does that. Not Pong, Doom, Super Mario, Dead or Alive (volleyball and non), Madden or whatever else that is held up as a real game for real gamers. That Dragon, Cancer had its Steam forum page flooded with formulaic trolling by representatives of "real gaming" precisely because it handled faith in trying times. There hasn't been much respect for videogames because the medium is hard to understand, hard to make and most of it doesn't have very high ambitions. The great games have mostly been great at delivering an experience rather than doing anything to make you understand the world better. A dazzling piece of escapism deserves understanding and praise in its own way but it's hard to make good art without being about something and challenging people.
Off-topic, if I wanted to argue for a particular game being particularly poignant in its purpose ("what does humanity's future look like? What does the perfect society look like?"), I would argue for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri fitting that description. The add-on dilutes the "conflict of philosophies" aspect too much but the core game is still amazing to this day.
Lol.. the guy who doesn't believe in science. Thinks women should carry dead fetuses to term. And is all around a bigger and worse racists, sexist, monster than Trump could hope to be.
Yup. Pence is a pretty solid guy.
Not someone who is a high risk of leading a coup though
Rosebuddy wrote: You could always write a story. Then the exploration wouldn't have to be limited by what the developers wrote into the code.
Problem with writing a story is that you kind of know what is around every corner. You put it there.
I agree that games focusing on the language of interaction have a good shot at advancing the medium but the biggest problem there is the language itself. Controllers are pretty alien devices for a lot of people. This limits approachability further beyond requiring specific, extra advanced machines. Not a lot of people are going to have to skip a number of major new books just because their physical dimensions are wrong.
I do not feel like we have adequately explored the design space we have available to us now, and the limiting factor is that the game industry is made up of a few very large companies who largely focus on a few, risk-free genres. I actually think that efforts towards approachability end up hampering the potential of gaming. You can make something new or you can make something familiar. You can't do both - certainly not with the variety needed for the game industry to be sustainable for another few decades.
One game I think does a pretty good job of both expressing itself through interaction and keeping it simple is Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons but I feel there's even more that can be done. Videogames have the major physical issue of the exact device used to interact with them. It's going to require a lot of thinking outside the box to even begin handling that and that's part of why the whole Gamergate movement was so damaging for the medium. Driving away everyone who doesn't have the same understanding of what a game is and should be can only lead to stagnation.
GamerGate wasn't damaging to the medium. Anita Sarkeesian getting on her soap box and telling us what we can and can't do with the medium was damaging. Games journalism constantly criticizing games that exist outside the very, very small box of diversity and socially progressive values was damaging. Alienating the very group of gamers that accept complexity and variety in game design, causing designs to get even more risk-adverse and conformist in an effort to appeal to the legendarily uncommitted casual non-gaming audience was damaging. The end result is that the variety that the game industry used to feature has been replaced with an reliance on tired game design and ideological purity.
GamerGate didn't harm the game industry. It was a response to the game industry harming itself. And for that, they get labeled "alt-right" racists and harassers.
Sqorgar wrote: GamerGate wasn't damaging to the medium. Anita Sarkeesian getting on her soap box and telling us what we can and can't do with the medium was damaging. Games journalism constantly criticizing games that exist outside the very, very small box of diversity and socially progressive values was damaging. Alienating the very group of gamers that accept complexity and variety in game design, causing designs to get even more risk-adverse and conformist in an effort to appeal to the legendarily uncommitted casual non-gaming audience was damaging. The end result is that the variety that the game industry used to feature has been replaced with an reliance on tired game design and ideological purity.
Really? I am not a Sarkeesian fan, so this is not in defense of her at all, but how old is Gamer Gate? 2 years? To say that the game industry used to be full of variety and now isn't seems a stretch. Gamers have been bitching about the sameness of games for years, certainly well before Sarkeesian or anyone involved with Gamer Gate were on anyone's radar.
LightKing wrote: With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example
calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device
GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think
Sqorgar wrote: GamerGate wasn't damaging to the medium. Anita Sarkeesian getting on her soap box and telling us what we can and can't do with the medium was damaging. Games journalism constantly criticizing games that exist outside the very, very small box of diversity and socially progressive values was damaging. Alienating the very group of gamers that accept complexity and variety in game design, causing designs to get even more risk-adverse and conformist in an effort to appeal to the legendarily uncommitted casual non-gaming audience was damaging. The end result is that the variety that the game industry used to feature has been replaced with an reliance on tired game design and ideological purity.
Really? I am not a Sarkeesian fan, so this is not in defense of her at all, but how old is Gamer Gate? 2 years? To say that the game industry used to be full of variety and now isn't seems a stretch. Gamers have been bitching about the sameness of games for years, certainly well before Sarkeesian or anyone involved with Gamer Gate were on anyone's radar.
Yup. The big publishers had moved to churning out annual sequels for their man franchises way before gamergate was a thing. The point at which creativity and risk took a backseat to churn was when Call of Duty 4 came out.
And they did that because "real" gamers bought those games and then had to buy the next one so they could play the new multiplayer which was basically just a map pack with some added features on the last one.
Sqorgar wrote: Problem with writing a story is that you kind of know what is around every corner. You put it there.
There is a whole process to writing, though, and you don't have to really stop doing it.
Sqorgar wrote: GamerGate wasn't damaging to the medium. Anita Sarkeesian getting on her soap box and telling us what we can and can't do with the medium was damaging. Games journalism constantly criticizing games that exist outside the very, very small box of diversity and socially progressive values was damaging. Alienating the very group of gamers that accept complexity and variety in game design, causing designs to get even more risk-adverse and conformist in an effort to appeal to the legendarily uncommitted casual non-gaming audience was damaging. The end result is that the variety that the game industry used to feature has been replaced with an reliance on tired game design and ideological purity.
GamerGate didn't harm the game industry. It was a response to the game industry harming itself. And for that, they get labeled "alt-right" racists and harassers.
Sarkeesian's analysis was feminism 101. Anyone who flips their gak over that wouldn't last a minute in another medium. Literature and cinema gets put through the wringer ten times worse on a daily basis. If you think she's harsh, this will probably be more than you can even process. This is just people wanting all the recognition and cred for spending a lot of time on art without having to deal with actual critique and analysis. It's pathetic.
A game existing outside the "very, very small box of" diversity and socially progressive values (IE, not hating minorities) is incredibly easy. Tetris manages it. The games getting criticised were and are the ones that don't simply exist outside of explicitly exploring being gay or black or whatever, but the ones that promote a particular kind of violent, white masculinity. You're holding up right-wing white men as the ultimate connoisseurs of videogames, who stand proudly for innovative design, and it's bs. It's flagrantly untrue. You're talking about the core demographic for Battlefield, Fallout 4, Ubisoft lootfests and similar junk that challenges nothing because they're chained down by the sheer weight of their funding. Fallout 4 isn't bad because of women saying that a lot of games actually treat women terribly and that the scene in general is hostile to women, it's bad because of the nature of AAA games and Bethesda's incompetence.
The reason gamergate was labelled as harassers is because it's what they did. They organised harassment campaigns against tiered lists of targets. They threw the god damn kitchen sink of slurs and threats at women who wrote about what it was like being a woman in a hugely male-dominated industry. Your explanation of events is false. Your claim that the variety the industry "used to feature" a mere two years ago - two years ago - is gone now because of feminism is ridiculous. You are not the oh-so-reasonable viewer of both sides that you want to think you are.
Gamergate was just one big cluster among many on the long list of "first world problems". It started getting REALLY ridiculous when the trolls started moving in for "the lulz", and drama queens like Brianna Wu starting with her nonsense (like the crap that "ex-military snipers" were out to assassinate her).
Anita Sarkeesian is just another opportunistic stain just out to make a quick buck playing to the Tumblrinas and easily butthurt, and baiting the trolls to add more fuel to the fire. And all the while, she's raking in the cash and notoriety.
As for this junk about the "alt-right", that label is just another buzzword embraced by the hard left, media shills, and high-profile trolls profiting from it. I occasionally browse 4chan's /pol/ (the supposed "home" of the "alt-right"), and there are those there that reject the idea that they are part of some sort of "alt-right" movement (decentralized or otherwise). It's a similar case with this whole "Anonymous" garbage. The "normies" have been led to believe that they are some sort of "hacktivist collective" (which doesn't exist) every since that ruckus with the "Church" of Scientology back in '08. It's all a bunch of utter nonsense.
And the memes? Good luck with that. That's part of 4chan (and internet) culture. Memes are created, but some grow on their own like a lifeform. You can't stop that which is unstoppable. Even if you have a legal team with the punch of GW's.
Well 4chan isn't the home of the alt-right so your working with bad info. 8chan, R/the_donald, r/conspiracy, Stormfront, various closed group Facebook pages...etc etc, those are the homes of the alt-right. 4chan isn't anything but people trying to out rude and edge each other. Alt-right is an actual thing that is actually studied by real people.
LightKing wrote: With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example
calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device
GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think
You mean like "gamers" who start whining the moment someone even dares to criticise a game in a way they don't like? As if it's a souffle that will collapse the moment anybody says something negative about it. That type of butthurt?
As for this junk about the "alt-right", that label is just another buzzword embraced by the hard left, media shills, and high-profile trolls profiting from it. I occasionally browse 4chan's /pol/ (the supposed "home" of the "alt-right"), and there are those there that reject the idea that they are part of some sort of "alt-right" movement (decentralized or otherwise).
Here are literal white supremacists saying they are the alt-right and embracing the term (as a politically correct euphemism for Neo-Nazis). http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/ (could be NSFW)
That has nothing to do with a "hard left buzzword" or media shills when they themselves are all for using it. From the linked article:
That said, there is nothing fundamentally different about the Alt-Right and the old White Nationalist movement. They have the same basic goals but simply use different methods in their attempts to achieve them.
loki old fart wrote: Are people getting butt hurt over this ? I mean really!! With all the bad things going on in the world. You want to complain over this .
My only issue with that is the God Emperor of Mankind wouldn't get in a twitter war with a former beauty contestant, nor would he be so insecure as to feel compelled to defend the size of his penis on TV.
loki old fart wrote: Are people getting butt hurt over this ? I mean really!! With all the bad things going on in the world. You want to complain over this .
Spoiler:
Nobody was butthurt until a load of people came in and started complaining about people getting butthurt.
The OP was merely raising the point about whether GW will want their product associated with far-right politics (real life politics, that is).
BrotherGecko wrote: Well 4chan isn't the home of the alt-right so your working with bad info. 8chan, R/the_donald, r/conspiracy, Stormfront, various closed group Facebook pages...etc etc, those are the homes of the alt-right. 4chan isn't anything but people trying to out rude and edge each other. Alt-right is an actual thing that is actually studied by real people.
Wow, people study funny contrarians?
After a google I found you are correct. Seems it is studied.
I wonder if maybe the confusion here comes from people not understanding that a racist group doesn't mean every person who's enjoyed a meme from the group or particpated in some activity from the group is automatically a racist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: So while there are general traits one can apply to the stereotypical Dakkanaught, one cannot take a list of Dakka members and say "These people are all tabletop gamers."
That is the point I was trying to make.
Sure, so while it would be mistaken to say that every person who has ever contributed to the alt-right was racist, we can still acknowledge that such views are very common in the group, and the overall beliefs of the group have strong racist elements.
It isn't the study of contrarian memes but rather their use as a soft recruitment method. Introduce kids or young men to the basic concepts of racist ideology to normalize it. Which is what they do and openly admit it.
BrotherGecko wrote: Well 4chan isn't the home of the alt-right so your working with bad info. 8chan, R/the_donald, r/conspiracy, Stormfront, various closed group Facebook pages...etc etc, those are the homes of the alt-right. 4chan isn't anything but people trying to out rude and edge each other. Alt-right is an actual thing that is actually studied by real people.
Hotwheelschan stopped being relevant when anons started flocking back to 4chan after m00t sold the site to the founder of 2chan. Anything Reddit is cancer and tier. Stormfront has long been one of many white supremacist websites/forums (long before the term "alt-right" was coined) and the Facebook crap came into popularity when the whole "alt-right" meme took hold. 4chan's /pol/ was (and still is) touted as being "ground zero" for the so-called "alt-right". So, no. I'm not misinformed.
And "real people" fund studies into the paranormal and extraterrestrial abduction too. It doesn't mean there is really anything to it but hype.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: You mean like "gamers" who start whining the moment someone even dares to criticise a game in a way they don't like? As if it's a souffle that will collapse the moment anybody says something negative about it. That type of butthurt?
That's part of it. Too bad the most notable of the so-called "critics" ere mostly grievance industry hucksters.
Here are literal white supremacists saying they are the alt-right and embracing the term (as a politically correct euphemism for Neo-Nazis). http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/ (could be NSFW)
That has nothing to do with a "hard left buzzword" or media shills when they themselves are all for using it. From the linked article:
That said, there is nothing fundamentally different about the Alt-Right and the old White Nationalist movement. They have the same basic goals but simply use different methods in their attempts to achieve them.
Just because a blogger on a white supremacist site (and as far as racist websites go, the Daily Stormer makes Stormfront look like a collection of Socrates and Platos in comparison) likes to embrace the term as a more "polite" term for his/her ideology proves nothing.
The whole hysteria of the "alt-right" is nothing more than hype, and a buzzword to describe mischief makers on troll sites. Nothing more.
Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
First they came for the internet memes and I did nothing because I wasn't on Facebook...
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
No. The suppression of free speech is what's fascist. They're words/pictures...and that's all they are, cause you no injury. People have become overly sensitive snowflakes and that's what caused the movement you hate so much. Ignore words you don't like, focus on actions instead...like the riots, that actually hurts people. Sticks and stones...
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
First they came for the internet memes and I did nothing because I wasn't on Facebook...
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
No. The suppression of free speech is what's fascist. There words/pictures...and that's all they are, cause you no injury. People have become overly sensitive snowflakes and that's what caused the movement you hate so much. Ignore words you don't like, focus on actions instead...like the riots, that actually hurts people. Sticks and stones...
.
Someone should tell that to the President-Elect before he makes another tweet about how a theater cast hurt Mike Pence's feelings.
Below, I've collected some non-hurtful words and pictures.
You know, I really can't understand why anyone would associate those wacky alt-righters and their chosen candidate with Nazis.
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
No. The suppression of free speech is what's fascist. There words/pictures...and that's all they are, cause you no injury. People have become overly sensitive snowflakes and that's what caused the movement you hate so much. Ignore words you don't like, focus on actions instead...like the riots, that actually hurts people. Sticks and stones...
You mean like Trump did today? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Words have power, and I'm really starting to get irritated by the people defending bullying with "sticks and stones". It wasn't true when I was five and it's not true now. Words and ideologies have power. If the alt right was caused by people getting so upset by words perhaps someone as thin skinned as Trump should not have been the choice of leader. The reality is that it's just the same as when I was 5, all this "ignore what you don't like" is just defending bullying and harassment.
Rakar wrote: No. The suppression of free speech is what's fascist. There words/pictures...and that's all they are, cause you no injury. People have become overly sensitive snowflakes and that's what caused the movement you hate so much. Ignore words you don't like, focus on actions instead...like the riots, that actually hurts people. Sticks and stones...
Saying "you're a , stop doing that" is not suppression of free speech. It is use of free speech.
So, Tic Tacs came out saying they did not support Trump's use of their product, and New Balance came out saying they did not want to be associated with white supremacy, but we don't expect GW to say "please leave us out of your politics. GW does not condone any philosophy that values one group over another. In the grim darkness of the far future, everyone is equally doomed." I don't see why they can't use the negative publicity they are gaining already by association to generate some positive publicity.
Spinner - Vandalism isn't a right, that's action and they should legally punished for it. The cast that made fun of Pence had the right to do so, I defend that. I'm not saying Trump is right or Trump is wrong. What I am saying is people who hate Trump have every right to mock him, while people who love Trump have an equal right to mock. I think its stupid to water-down words like fascist, nazi, and communist, but stupid statements are protected too.
Rakar wrote: No. The suppression of free speech is what's fascist. There words/pictures...and that's all they are, cause you no injury. People have become overly sensitive snowflakes and that's what caused the movement you hate so much. Ignore words you don't like, focus on actions instead...like the riots, that actually hurts people. Sticks and stones...
Saying "you're a , stop doing that" is not suppression of free speech. It is use of free speech.
Call him, me, or anyone whatever you want. That's the right I'm defending. I agree with you.
Rakar wrote: Why care what other people do when it has zero impact on you? Just because you don't like their viewpoint doesn't mean they should be denied the right to share it. Be mature and ignore it if it bothers you.
What the alt-right gets up to doesn't have zero impact on people because they're the core of a new fascist movement and have an in with the next president of the most powerful country on the planet. Your approach will get you murdered by nazis.
No. The suppression of free speech is what's fascist. There words/pictures...and that's all they are, cause you no injury. People have become overly sensitive snowflakes and that's what caused the movement you hate so much. Ignore words you don't like, focus on actions instead...like the riots, that actually hurts people. Sticks and stones...
You mean like Trump did today? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Words have power, and I'm really starting to get irritated by the people defending bullying with "sticks and stones". It wasn't true when I was five and it's not true now. Words and ideologies have power. If the alt right was caused by people getting so upset by words perhaps someone as thin skinned as Trump should not have been the choice of leader. The reality is that it's just the same as when I was 5, all this "ignore what you don't like" is just defending bullying and harassment.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them. The world is a harsh and cruel place, when you grow up in a safe-space bubble you are not trained to deal with reality. Part of maturing is realizing that the opinions and words of a bully are value-less. All that truly affects you is your opinion of yourself. Stand up to bullies, if you see a meme you hate, counter it with a better one. When you silence opinions you disagree with, you become the bully.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Politics are a nightmare. Sports and games are supposed to be an escape from that. If GW themselves were putting out these memes I'd be pissed, but they aren't. They aren't endorsing them. Condemning them would just draw more attention to them and politicize something that should be apolitical. This will all blow over soon enough.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
If the Alt-right starts behaving violently, by all means arrest them, shoot them, whatever is necessary. If they call for rape and murder, as their detractors have, that's NOT protected speech, you get arrested for that. However just because you don't like their politics doesn't mean you can ban their speech. The Nazis you love to reference so dearly did exactly that to their opponents. Both side needs to start listening to each and respecting eachother rather them screaming Nazi the first time they hear something outside of their echo chamber. I will stand up for intellectual and political diversity whether I agree with it or not. That is what it takes to be a free society.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
If the Alt-right starts behaving violently, by all means arrest them, shoot them, whatever is necessary. If they call for rape and murder, as their detractors have, that's NOT protected speech, you get arrested for that. However just because you don't like their politics doesn't mean you can ban their speech. The Nazis you love to reference so dearly did exactly that to their opponents. Both side needs to start listening to each and respecting eachother rather them screaming Nazi the first time they hear something outside of their echo chamber.
You know, it might just be me, but I don't hear people saying 'dude, these guys are neo-Nazis' and following it up with 'they should be raped and murdered'.
So your answer to me saying words do have power is to try and silence me by telling me it's nonsense and that "that's how the world is"? If the world has come down to "who can come up with a more popular meme" then we have serious issues. There is only one group trying to silence everyone who disagrees with them, and it is not the progressive left. There is a difference between criticism of views and trying to silence them. Calling opinions out as racist or sexist or bullying is not trying to silence them, it's standing up to them.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
If the Alt-right starts behaving violently, by all means arrest them, shoot them, whatever is necessary. If they call for rape and murder, as their detractors have, that's NOT protected speech, you get arrested for that. However just because you don't like their politics doesn't mean you can ban their speech. The Nazis you love to reference so dearly did exactly that to their opponents. Both side needs to start listening to each and respecting eachother rather them screaming Nazi the first time they hear something outside of their echo chamber.
You know, it might just be me, but I don't hear people saying 'dude, these guys are neo-Nazis' and following it up with 'they should be raped and murdered'.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Steve steveson wrote: So your answer to me saying words do have power is to try and silence me by telling me it's nonsense and that "that's how the world is"? If the world has come down to "who can come up with a more popular meme" then we have serious issues. There is only one group trying to silence everyone who disagrees with them, and it is not the progressive left. There is a difference between criticism of views and trying to silence them. Calling opinions out as racist or sexist or bullying is not trying to silence them, it's standing up to them.
I haven't tried to silence you in the least. I'm trying to have discussion. I have not shown any disrespect, I haven't even defended Trump. I am saying the speech that needs protection is unpopular speech. When you silence it based on something as subjective as hurt feelings, which greatly vary from person to person, you are supporting a form of soft oppression.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are systems in place to stop that from happening.
The US is not the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic's democracy was poorly designed and forced on a people who didn't want it, who would rather have had their Kaiser back.
The US was built to be a democratic republic from the ground up for a people who no longer wanted a monarch, with a strict series of regulations in place to stop misuse of power.
The likelihood of the US becoming Nazi Germany is very low.
Rakar wrote: However just because you don't like their politics doesn't mean you can ban their speech.
Fortunately nobody is talking about banning their speech. A lot of people are saying "you suck" to people they don't like, and/or declining to publish speech that they don't agree with but nobody is banning anything.
It is not nonsense. Use your speech to stand up to bullies, but you've no right to silence them.
It strikes me as useless and cowardly to say that people can dislike bullies all they want but aren't allowed to stop them from bullying. Similarly, the issue with nazis isn't that they are merely disagreeable, it is that they are adherents of an ideology the whole point of which is to cleanse the world of the lesser races through violence. They will start campaigns of murder as soon as they believe they can get away with it. They will kill minorities, journalists, leftists and liberals alike. Getting stuck in the amoral quagmire of letting everyone say whatever they want to leaves you more aghast at the people who resist nazism than its practitioners.
If the Alt-right starts behaving violently, by all means arrest them, shoot them, whatever is necessary. If they call for rape and murder, as their detractors have, that's NOT protected speech, you get arrested for that. However just because you don't like their politics doesn't mean you can ban their speech. The Nazis you love to reference so dearly did exactly that to their opponents. Both side needs to start listening to each and respecting eachother rather them screaming Nazi the first time they hear something outside of their echo chamber.
You know, it might just be me, but I don't hear people saying 'dude, these guys are neo-Nazis' and following it up with 'they should be raped and murdered'.
The second example doesn't actually include any links to the threats it's referencing - although it does include a link to an article at the bottom speculating about an astronaut warning the world of aliens - and while the Daily Mail article does include some sources, I'm not seeing any rape threats in either.
Maybe I phrased my response badly. There's certainly a lot of idiots out there on the internet. Calling for rape and murder, however, is certainly not the province, cornerstone, stock-in-trade, or what have you of the alt-right's detractors.
The second example doesn't actually include any links to the threats it's referencing - although it does include a link to an article at the bottom speculating about an astronaut warning the world of aliens - and while the Daily Mail article does include some sources, I'm not seeing any rape threats in either.
Maybe I phrased my response badly. There's certainly a lot of idiots out there on the internet. Calling for rape and murder, however, is certainly not the province, cornerstone, stock-in-trade, or what have you of the alt-right's detractors.
Here's one with a CEO threatening to shoot him with a sniper rifle:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/on-air/as-seen-on/matt4pm1114_San-Diego-401186945.html The stories are everywhere, that being said, these people are as poor a representation of the left as the neo-nazis are of the alt-right. Its unfair to define either group by an extreme and insane fringe. So, on that I agree with you.
So basically the radical left has become nothing more than a bunch of Godwinites.
How many hate groups supported Obama? I know that the New Black Panther Party supported Obama...where was all the outrage, and calling of Obama a racist bigot? It's all hypocrisy, and words.
trump can't help what groups support him, just like Obama or Clinton can't.
SnakePlissken wrote: So basically the radical left has become nothing more than a bunch of Godwinites.
Well, when we're dealing with people espousing actual Nazi sentiments in some cases...
How many hate groups supported Obama? I know that the New Black Panther Party supported Obama...where was all the outrage, and calling of Obama a racist bigot? It's all hypocrisy, and words.
trump can't help what groups support him, just like Obama or Clinton can't.
The "New Black Panther" party has neither the numbers, the long history, the political organization nor the potential demographic backing that racist groups from other demographics get, and is largely like 3 dudes that post stupid internet crap and get themselves into trouble once every few years, and are largely held to be racist extremist groups by the same people and groups (e.g. ADL, SPLC, etc) using that label against many of those supporting Trump. There's a huge gap between something like these dudes and say, the KKK or Nazi's and the like in these things.
That said, to some degree, it's true that Obama or Trump can't help all the groups that support them, and that's fair, but the number, size, and history of the groups supporting Trump, and increasingly doing so openly, is of a different caliber.
Do you really think that neo nazis are anything more than a few 100 "lost boys". Most of the skinheads i have seen grow out of it once they grow up a little.
The kkk isnt anything like it was in the past. Its pretty much just a bunch of radical rednecks that are in it anyway.
Im not saying you won't get the psychotic few that go all timothy mcveigh, but to pretend that they are a real threat is preposterous.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Trump campaigned on ethnically cleansing the US of Mexicans and on creating a register of known Muslims.
I haven't tried to silence you in the least. I'm trying to have discussion. I have not shown any disrespect, I haven't even defended Trump. I am saying the speech that needs protection is unpopular speech. When you silence it based on something as subjective as hurt feelings, which greatly vary from person to person, you are supporting a form of soft oppression.
You are drawing a false equivocation between nazis and their opponents. When you silence nazis, it's because every one of their actions is a call to gather strength to prepare for the murder of minorities. To pretend that stopping this is being a whiny baby acting out of "hurt feelings" is at best stupid and at worst a conscious lie intended to make nazism acceptable.
The Washington Post wrote:Mr. Duke, the one-time Imperial Wizard of the KKK, failed to garner much more than 3 percent of the vote earlier this month after he unsuccessfully campaigned on a platform of “respect for the rights and heritage of European Americans.” On Friday, however, he praised the president-elect for making staffing choices he considers to have waged similar efforts in support of whites.
“Mr. Trump’s appointment of Bannon, Flynn and Sessions are the first steps in the project of taking America back,” Mr. Duke tweeted on Friday.
In a blog post published the same day, the former Klansman outlined specifically what he favored about Mr. Trump’s appointments.
Mr. Bannon, the former Breitbart chairman named as Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, “has repeatedly exposed the vicious war on White people on his Breitbart website,” Mr. Duke wrote.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Trump campaigned on ethnically cleansing the US of Mexicans and on creating a register of known Muslims.
Your first point is demonstrably false hyperbole and your second point assigns far too much alarmism over something that has yet to be shown to be anything other than vague campaign promises. You're wasting your time with your crazy attempt to paint Trump and Republicans as literally Nazis.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Trump campaigned on ethnically cleansing the US of Mexicans and on creating a register of known Muslims.
No he didn't. He campaigned on deporting illegal immigrants and stopping illegal immigration. Unless you mean to tell me that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Trump campaigned on ethnically cleansing the US of Mexicans and on creating a register of known Muslims.
I haven't tried to silence you in the least. I'm trying to have discussion. I have not shown any disrespect, I haven't even defended Trump. I am saying the speech that needs protection is unpopular speech. When you silence it based on something as subjective as hurt feelings, which greatly vary from person to person, you are supporting a form of soft oppression.
You are drawing a false equivocation between nazis and their opponents. When you silence nazis, it's because every one of their actions is a call to gather strength to prepare for the murder of minorities. To pretend that stopping this is being a whiny baby acting out of "hurt feelings" is at best stupid and at worst a conscious lie intended to make nazism acceptable.
Trump Campaigned on cleansing the US of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I am not sure how that is hard to understand and I really don't understand how you got "ethnically cleansing mexicans" but if you could try not to post nonsense like that it would be appreciated.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Trump campaigned on ethnically cleansing the US of Mexicans and on creating a register of known Muslims.
I haven't tried to silence you in the least. I'm trying to have discussion. I have not shown any disrespect, I haven't even defended Trump. I am saying the speech that needs protection is unpopular speech. When you silence it based on something as subjective as hurt feelings, which greatly vary from person to person, you are supporting a form of soft oppression.
You are drawing a false equivocation between nazis and their opponents. When you silence nazis, it's because every one of their actions is a call to gather strength to prepare for the murder of minorities. To pretend that stopping this is being a whiny baby acting out of "hurt feelings" is at best stupid and at worst a conscious lie intended to make nazism acceptable.
Trump Campaigned on cleansing the US of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I am not sure how that is hard to understand and I really don't understand how you got "ethnically cleansing mexicans" but if you could try not to post nonsense like that it would be appreciated.
So, how many times did Trump call out illegal immigrants from Asia? Europe? Canada?
His definition of illegal immigrant, which we can see from his campaign rhetoric, is pretty much solely latin american and specifically mexican.
So, how many times did Trump call out illegal immigrants from Asia? Europe? Canada?
His definition of illegal immigrant, which we can see from his campaign rhetoric, is pretty much solely latin american and specifically mexican.
Why do you think that is Malus? Are there millions of illegal Asians? Europeans or Canadians running around America? I won't lie and say I have looked up the numbers but I am willing to bet that every other country in the world combined doesn't equal 1/10th the number of illegals from Mexico and Central/South America.
Your argument is equivalent to saying we shouldn't stop illegal drugs because we don't trumpet people abusing midol or some other minor concern.
Let me get this straight, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to launch genocidal pogroms across the US because there's a Breitbart editor on the White House staff?
Trump campaigned on ethnically cleansing the US of Mexicans and on creating a register of known Muslims.
I haven't tried to silence you in the least. I'm trying to have discussion. I have not shown any disrespect, I haven't even defended Trump. I am saying the speech that needs protection is unpopular speech. When you silence it based on something as subjective as hurt feelings, which greatly vary from person to person, you are supporting a form of soft oppression.
You are drawing a false equivocation between nazis and their opponents. When you silence nazis, it's because every one of their actions is a call to gather strength to prepare for the murder of minorities. To pretend that stopping this is being a whiny baby acting out of "hurt feelings" is at best stupid and at worst a conscious lie intended to make nazism acceptable.
Trump Campaigned on cleansing the US of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I am not sure how that is hard to understand and I really don't understand how you got "ethnically cleansing mexicans" but if you could try not to post nonsense like that it would be appreciated.
So, how many times did Trump call out illegal immigrants from Asia? Europe? Canada?
His definition of illegal immigrant, which we can see from his campaign rhetoric, is pretty much solely latin american and specifically mexican.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
And when people go after "illegal immigrants" they go after people they think look Mexican. They go after people with brown skin, people who speak Spanish, people who are poor, people who don't look like they belong in the US. That is why the call to throw them out is a call for ethnic cleansing.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
Majority, but not all.
If Trump was flat out against all illegal immigration then there would be absolutely zero need to bring any kind of ethnicity into it. He did bring ethnicity into it.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
Majority, but not all.
If Trump was flat out against all illegal immigration then there would be absolutely zero need to bring any kind of ethnicity into it. He did bring ethnicity into it.
In the context of increased border security it obviously matters to mention Mexico I think yes?
The interesting thing - which keeps getting brought up, and keeps getting ignored - is that Trump never really talks about overstayed visas from Asian countries when he discusses illegal immigration, and yet that's the fastest-growing type.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
And when people go after "illegal immigrants" they go after people they think look Mexican. They go after people with brown skin, people who speak Spanish, people who are poor, people who don't look like they belong in the US. That is why the call to throw them out is a call for ethnic cleansing.
Deporting illegal immigrants =/= genocide. We've always had deportations of illegal immigrants (including during Obama's terms) and for decades the majority of deportations have been to Mexico, central and South America. Increasing the scope and efficiency of those deportations is a far cry from ethnic cleansing.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
And when people go after "illegal immigrants" they go after people they think look Mexican. They go after people with brown skin, people who speak Spanish, people who are poor, people who don't look like they belong in the US. That is why the call to throw them out is a call for ethnic cleansing.
Deporting illegal immigrants =/= genocide. We've always had deportations of illegal immigrants (including during Obama's terms) and for decades the majority of deportations have been to Mexico, central and South America. Increasing the scope and efficiency of those deportations is a far cry from ethnic cleansing.
In one sense, sure, but when we're talking about deporting potentially millions of people, that's when it starts venturing into such territory, particularly when there are potentially when there are potentially 2 million illegal immigrants from other places (like asia and eastern europe) that nobody says a word about deporting in the political arena.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
And when people go after "illegal immigrants" they go after people they think look Mexican. They go after people with brown skin, people who speak Spanish, people who are poor, people who don't look like they belong in the US. That is why the call to throw them out is a call for ethnic cleansing.
So this ethnic cleansing bit is YOUR 'logical extension' of Trump's anti-ILLEGAL immigration stance. Right...no.
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
Majority, but not all.
If Trump was flat out against all illegal immigration then there would be absolutely zero need to bring any kind of ethnicity into it. He did bring ethnicity into it.
Matter of priorities Malus, Do you want to stop the trickle of educated asian/european illegal immigrants who stayed past there visas, or do you want to focus on the GIANT FLOOD of untrained, unskilled illegal immigrants flowing across our southern border?
If your answer is "We need to stop them all!" I agree, but realistically nobody cares about the Europeans/asians because they are not the ones bringing Crime with them. You can see racism in anything you like but even Trump has said is first priority is going to be deporting the Illegal aliens who have BROKEN THE LAW while in the United States. He is going after the Criminals and felons first. But again, racism right?
The mass hysteria about Trump is crazy to watch. The guy's policies really aren't that controversial, and people should be glad they aren't getting Hillary. There's something very sinister about that woman... she seems like a psychopath
Its almost as if the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, a country that is right next to the US.
Majority, but not all.
If Trump was flat out against all illegal immigration then there would be absolutely zero need to bring any kind of ethnicity into it. He did bring ethnicity into it.
Matter of priorities Malus, Do you want to stop the trickle of educated asian/european illegal immigrants who stayed past there visas, or do you want to focus on the GIANT FLOOD of untrained, unskilled illegal immigrants flowing across our southern border?
If your answer is "We need to stop them all!" I agree, but realistically nobody cares about the Europeans/asians because they are not the ones bringing Crime with them. You can see racism in anything you like but even Trump has said is first priority is going to be deporting the Illegal aliens who have BROKEN THE LAW while in the United States. He is going after the Criminals and felons first. But again, racism right?
Well, as Hats said above, illegal immigration from other places is increasing. I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere (might be somewhere in one of the US politics threads) that illegal immigration from mexico is actually already decreasing on its own.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The mass hysteria about Trump is crazy to watch. The guy's policies really aren't that controversial, and people should be glad they aren't getting Hillary. There's something very sinister about that woman... she seems like a psychopath
Not controversial?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Well, as Hats said above, illegal immigration from other places is increasing. I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere (might be somewhere in one of the US politics threads) that illegal immigration from mexico is actually already decreasing on its own.
I question that research, I would like to know how they get those numbers. The idea behind illegal immigration is to stay hidden from the government so you don't get deported, this seems to make it look as if there is an illegal immigrant database, so my question then is, How did they come by these numbers? I don't have an answer other then maybe using some well informed educated guesses.
Regardless, I would say it is still a rather large problem that needs to be sorted out. Deport Illegals who have committed Crimes while in the US. Pretty straight forward really.
Now in regards to other things like DACA? I am more then willing to give DACA recipients the benefit of the doubt. Allow them to continue their education and apply for citizenship but make it a grand fathered program, in other words, no more DACA after those currently enrolled graduate and become citizens.
A country without a border is not a country. A country that doesn't enforce its laws is not a country.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The mass hysteria about Trump is crazy to watch. The guy's policies really aren't that controversial, and people should be glad they aren't getting Hillary. There's something very sinister about that woman... she seems like a psychopath
Not controversial?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Remember to differentiate between Trump's stated policies and those on the Republican ticket which are decided by the RNC not Trump.
As far as his policies, which ones are controversial?
Kilkrazy wrote: Does Trump actually have any policies? I thought he had already back-pedalled on everything he said in the campaign.
I am actually shocked you are still a Moderator. I am not trying to offend you, but I would say about 90% of your posts are either useless to the conversation that they are in or are openly insulting to other people in the conversation. This specific post is both wrong and adds nothing to the conversation.
Remember to differentiate between Trump's stated policies and those on the Republican ticket which are decided by the RNC not Trump.
As far as his policies, which ones are controversial?
Sorry, I thought we weren't supposed to be worried about the RNC's backwards bullcrap repeal-gay-marriage take-a-dump-on-the-environment platform because Trump wouldn't listen to it. Or something. Are we still arguing that?
Some apparently non-controversial stated policies from our President-Elect: gut climate change research, order US troops to commit war crimes, waste money trying the world's most impractical version of border security, handing out nukes around the world, etc., etc.
Remember to differentiate between Trump's stated policies and those on the Republican ticket which are decided by the RNC not Trump.
As far as his policies, which ones are controversial?
Sorry, I thought we weren't supposed to be worried about the RNC's backwards bullcrap repeal-gay-marriage take-a-dump-on-the-environment platform because Trump wouldn't listen to it. Or something. Are we still arguing that?
Some apparently non-controversial stated policies from our President-Elect: gut climate change research, order US troops to commit war crimes, waste money trying the world's most impractical version of border security, handing out nukes around the world, etc., etc.
Care to cite a source for those claims? one that goes beyond hyperbole?
Remember to differentiate between Trump's stated policies and those on the Republican ticket which are decided by the RNC not Trump.
As far as his policies, which ones are controversial?
Sorry, I thought we weren't supposed to be worried about the RNC's backwards bullcrap repeal-gay-marriage take-a-dump-on-the-environment platform because Trump wouldn't listen to it. Or something. Are we still arguing that?
Some apparently non-controversial stated policies from our President-Elect: gut climate change research, order US troops to commit war crimes, waste money trying the world's most impractical version of border security, handing out nukes around the world, etc., etc.
Care to cite a source for those claims? one that goes beyond hyperbole?
Those are all things which he repeated many times throughout his campaign. He claimed climate change was a chinese hoax, said that US soldiers would follow his orders to kill the families of terrorists, said he would build a wall across the whole us-mexico border and said that nuclear proliferation was a serious issue and that his solution was to give japan and south korea nukes.
If you somehow missed everything he ever said in his campaign then I don't know how.
Remember to differentiate between Trump's stated policies and those on the Republican ticket which are decided by the RNC not Trump.
As far as his policies, which ones are controversial?
Sorry, I thought we weren't supposed to be worried about the RNC's backwards bullcrap repeal-gay-marriage take-a-dump-on-the-environment platform because Trump wouldn't listen to it. Or something. Are we still arguing that?
Some apparently non-controversial stated policies from our President-Elect: gut climate change research, order US troops to commit war crimes, waste money trying the world's most impractical version of border security, handing out nukes around the world, etc., etc.
Care to cite a source for those claims? one that goes beyond hyperbole?
Did you not see the video of him saying he'd order US troops to shoot the relatives of ISIS followers? Here he is doubling down on that and endorsing the use of torture because 'they do it'.
You can see the climate change research defunding in his plan for his first hundred days, the wall thing speaks for itself, and he likes to go back and forth on whether or not he wants more nukes in the world - saying we need to reduce proliferation and then talking about countries that should be given the bomb.
So again, I ask both of you. Any proof beyond Hyperbole. As far as Climate change? I agree with that policy completely. So many different factors and research have come forward showing that climate change isn't the end of the world event that Al Gore started back in 2000.
BTW as far as Proof, I am talking about his 100 day agenda or things along that line. If we hold every politician to his debates then Obama has failed big time on a number of things
"I don't like this thing the Red Team Man said one time, or I like it but I'm going to pretend like I don't, so instead of saying 'yes, he's flawed', or giving my support to a different Red Team member or even a member of another team, I'm going to pretend like it didn't count when he said it."
Spinner wrote: "I don't like this thing the Red Team Man said one time, or I like it but I'm going to pretend like I don't, so instead of saying 'yes, he's flawed', or giving my support to a different Red Team member or even a member of another team, I'm going to pretend like it didn't count when he said it."
Seriously. That's all I'm hearing.
So to translate that. No you don't have any proof beyond vague Hyperbole at a debate? got it.
SemperMortis wrote: So again, I ask both of you. Any proof beyond Hyperbole. As far as Climate change? I agree with that policy completely. So many different factors and research have come forward showing that climate change isn't the end of the world event that Al Gore started back in 2000.
BTW as far as Proof, I am talking about his 100 day agenda or things along that line. If we hold every politician to his debates then Obama has failed big time on a number of things
You want proof that climate change is a big fething deal? Go look on NASA'swebsite. Unless you don't think that bigger and more frequent hurricanes, droughts, rising sea levels, ecosystem destruction and a lot more are big deals. In which case you'd be a moron.
Spinner wrote: "I don't like this thing the Red Team Man said one time, or I like it but I'm going to pretend like I don't, so instead of saying 'yes, he's flawed', or giving my support to a different Red Team member or even a member of another team, I'm going to pretend like it didn't count when he said it."
Seriously. That's all I'm hearing.
So to translate that. No you don't have any proof beyond vague Hyperbole at a debate? got it.
I never realised that somebody saying they would order soldiers to commit war crimes was vague hyperbole.
SemperMortis wrote: So again, I ask both of you. Any proof beyond Hyperbole. As far as Climate change? I agree with that policy completely. So many different factors and research have come forward showing that climate change isn't the end of the world event that Al Gore started back in 2000.
BTW as far as Proof, I am talking about his 100 day agenda or things along that line. If we hold every politician to his debates then Obama has failed big time on a number of things
You want proof that climate change is a big fething deal? Go look on NASA'swebsite. Unless you don't think that bigger and more frequent hurricanes, droughts, rising sea levels, ecosystem destruction and a lot more are big deals.
How about the fact that NASA themselves have said that the Antarctic ice has grown? or the record winters we have had in recent years? or the fact that Global climate change is a FACT that has been around FOREVER! ice ages comes and go, during the Jurassic period the earth was a lot hotter then it is today. So yea, i don't hold much faith in a report that the world is going to end Waterworld style.
SemperMortis wrote: So again, I ask both of you. Any proof beyond Hyperbole. As far as Climate change? I agree with that policy completely. So many different factors and research have come forward showing that climate change isn't the end of the world event that Al Gore started back in 2000.
BTW as far as Proof, I am talking about his 100 day agenda or things along that line. If we hold every politician to his debates then Obama has failed big time on a number of things
You want proof that climate change is a big fething deal? Go look on NASA'swebsite. Unless you don't think that bigger and more frequent hurricanes, droughts, rising sea levels, ecosystem destruction and a lot more are big deals.
How about the fact that NASA themselves have said that the Antarctic ice has grown? or the record winters we have had in recent years? or the fact that Global climate change is a FACT that has been around FOREVER! ice ages comes and go, during the Jurassic period the earth was a lot hotter then it is today. So yea, i don't hold much faith in a report that the world is going to end Waterworld style.
Look at the fething website and read it. It even has breakdowns of the effects on regions in the USA. Here's a surprise, antarctica getting slightly bigger doesn't mean that you won't be fethed.
I never realised that somebody saying they would order soldiers to commit war crimes was vague hyperbole.
From the Hyperbole riddled video you showed, I think he said "Go after" not Shoot on site. And under most RoEs they would be legitimate targets for capture and detainment.
I never realised that somebody saying they would order soldiers to commit war crimes was vague hyperbole.
From the Hyperbole riddled video you showed, I think he said "Go after" not Shoot on site. And under most RoEs they would be legitimate targets for capture and detainment.
Except the question specifically brings up whether the US military would refuse illegal orders. To which Trump says no, they would not even if they were illegal.
SemperMortis wrote: So yea, i don't hold much faith in a report that the world is going to end Waterworld style.
Fortunately nobody is saying that's how it's going to end up. But you don't have to have the world reduced to a handful of desperate survivors on their tiny islands to have major problems. For example, what do you do if climate changes cause major agricultural regions to stop being so productive? People might not be drowning, but you're going to have food shortages and massive economic disruption. Or what do you do if you have tens of millions of refugees from coastal areas that lost their homes and jobs to flooding? What do you do when hurricanes/fires/etc keep adding up the damage costs?
SemperMortis wrote: Why do you think that is Malus? Are there millions of illegal Asians? Europeans or Canadians running around America? I won't lie and say I have looked up the numbers but I am willing to bet that every other country in the world combined doesn't equal 1/10th the number of illegals from Mexico and Central/South America.
Mexicans made up 52% of all illegal immigrants in 2014. The total number of Mexicans who had illegally immigrated was 5.8 million, this number had declined from its peak in 2009 by 600,000. Meanwhile, non-Mexican illegal immigrants, mostly from Asia (ie India and China) are increasing by 300,000 each year. So it is likely that by now Mexico probably doesn't even account for half of all illegal immigration. This means your estimate of 90% is wrong by a very large margin.
I find it interesting that we just went through a year long presidential campaign in which illegal immigration was a major campaign element of one candidate, and you never even spent the time to find out how illegal immigration actually worked, and why the proposals of that presidential candidate made so little sense given the reality of illegal immigration today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Does Trump actually have any policies? I thought he had already back-pedalled on everything he said in the campaign.
In the last few weeks he's actually clarified his actual, final positions on some stuff.
He was telling the truth when he promised his tax cut for the rich. He was lying about taxing rich people more.
He was lying about replacing and repealing ACA.
He was lying when he talked about leaving social security and medicare alone. He's actually going with the standard Republican thing about vouchers and privatisation.
His big plan for infrastructure is a tax cut to people who are already developing new infrastructure. There is nothing in his plan for repairing and maintaining existing infrastructure, or doing anything for infrastructure that isn't capable of turning a profit.
Fairly predictably, the people who defended Trump as he flipped back and forth on all these issues, are still defending Trump.
Kilkrazy wrote: Does Trump actually have any policies? I thought he had already back-pedalled on everything he said in the campaign.
In the last few weeks he's actually clarified his actual, final positions on some stuff.
He was telling the truth when he promised his tax cut for the rich. He was lying about taxing rich people more.
He was lying about replacing and repealing ACA.
He was lying when he talked about leaving social security and medicare alone. He's actually going with the standard Republican thing about vouchers and privatisation.
His big plan for infrastructure is a tax cut to people who are already developing new infrastructure. There is nothing in his plan for repairing and maintaining existing infrastructure, or doing anything for infrastructure that isn't capable of turning a profit.
Fairly predictably, the people who defended Trump as he flipped back and forth on all these issues, are still defending Trump.
Well, let's just give him a chance. He may have lied and be swirling around his own policies now, but let's see what actually hits the table legislatively.
job, and move out of the 
