Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Tucker Carlson is a political commentator for FOX News; both he and his company are well-known for their political leanings.
I feel like, when it comes to non-tribalistic perspectives actual issues, everybody has opinions on subjects that are either 'left' or 'right', depending on what locale you're even using those terms in.
Eventually, I think, you either settle into those hard-line positions or you start to distance yourself from those specific 'left' or 'right' labels. There's lots of other political positions out there, I mean.
I like his last name, if anything.
OH MY GOSH FUNIMATION, REALLY?
The results were much more disastrous than I'd have thought possible.
(Figured it's more about politics than video games, so posting it in this thread.)
I don't know much about the gamergate crowd, but I had a feeling that the whole 'moment' was pretty much solidified around that specific set of events, so lots of groups with different views on things but somehow coalescing on that issue came together to be jerks about it. Afterwards, it stuck around for a bit before dissipating.
They're not like, say, incels, who are a legit weird thing. Speaking of which, this movement always confuses me because I bet 90% of the people on those boards could probably be out there engaging in... um... uncelling themselves but instead they specifically seek out an ideology that either makes them celibate or insists, essentially, that only non-consensual encounters are acceptable.
I do know that there's been a recent study out that appears to debunk the whole video games=violence thing (but of course, "recent study" could mean literally anything). Plus, under normal circumstances, you can't learn to shoot a gun from a video game anyways.
Do you mean that they were sort of crossed with the MAGA crowd and now he's attempting to burn that bridge too?
I was actually going to post earlier about how Julian Castro's (guy running for Democratic Candidate) President of the US) twin brother (a congressman, it seems?) tweeted out a list of Trump donors from their constituent. This information was already public, but what he was essentially doing was using their donations to draw a flimsy line between supporting him and... well, the recent spate of mass shootings. Whichever way you cut it, it was very much a "It's all your fault!" type thing.
It really confused me because the Democratic side has always argued for shadow money and corporate to be banned from politics, but this act by a Democratic congressman was essentially telling people that even if they can't find out who you voted for so they can come after you, they'd do it if you donated money. Basically, he crafted a perfect arguement for why donations should be anonymous and it really freaked me out to see the reaction to this from some of the sites I read a lot personally because they kind of tried really hard not to say he did anything wrong. Vox played a long game of "people said and people said" but the article still ended up being "You should always donate to the candidate people like because people will know if you did it wrong".
As much as I am legit completely tired of hearing about Donald Trump (not here, but out there in the actual world), there has always been this line people were unwilling to cross. Like, we hear about Trump "voters" but nobody was willing to vilify people for basically doing their democratic duty. Of course they all voted for... well... you know, but those are people with lives that at the end of the day should be allowed to go on with their lives without being blamed and shamed.
I actually didn't want to post this because, well, I'm essentially supporting Trump supporters here. But so what? We're all just people, and there's more to live (no, seriously) than who is in the White House and who put him there. It's important, of course, but I believe interpersonal relationships, boundaries and a civil, happy community are way more important.
I know it sounds like, well, I suddenly had a big change of heart when it came to this stuff, but it turns out that the Trump White House actually is attempting to (I mean, at least to some degree) lobby for the decriminalization of homosexuality around the world. Like, that's not a terrible thing and it's happening! How many other things that aren't the worst are happening right now?
(man this is one of those days where I get to the end of a thing and I'm like "What am I even writing? Why are there so many words?")
Oh so of course whilst I was looking up all the stuff I talked about here, Joe Biden had the Joe Biden moment I've been waiting for since people started saying "Hey you know who should run against Trump? Actual human gaffe-machine Joe Biden!"
I honestly cannot believe it took this long.
As far as it involves burning bridges, I'm pretty sure Trump has no understanding of the Internet silliness involving him (if that's what you mean by MAGA crowd). I guess he's generally aware that some kids on the Internet ran a volunteer campaign of support for him, and that's all. But they are no lobby in the classical sense like the NRA is. So, if Trump is going to pin the blame for the shootings on something, it's going to be the video games, because in his own view, pinning the blame on them is not going to cost him any votes. (And frankly, I'm pretty sure that 4chan is not a significant enough segment of the voting populace for him to be wrong on this one.)
So, about gamergaters. I believe there is an overlap between the two groups, them and the Internet Trump Squad. (And the incels, for much the same reasons, but that's beside the topic.) I mean, I don't feel like looking for proofs, so call it my hunch, but you're not going to vote Hillary if you think feminists are ruining your lifestyle, are you? So, I imagine that right now there's a bunch of folks in /pol/ and 8chan who feel betrayed.
No worries, I started off responding to your thing and then I ended up just venting so I don't expect much in return.
Yeah I'd guess that's the math behind that.
I think they'll soon get over it, after all, I think a lot of their support for Donald Trump comes from the need to be edgy rather than some actual political position.
Something I've learned is that hating people over voting alone isn't worth it, it doesn't take a lot of commitment to cast a vote vs. how much one is expected to vote, so you'll see people voting for dumb but not terribly malicious reasons and you can brush it off as naivety or misinformedness. It's the people who insist on it, double down on it and evangelize others into it that are deserving of your contempt.
As for /pol/ and 8chan, remember when we thought /b/ was bad?
Also. I'd like to admit to something to you guys. When folks are talking about stuff like politics of the US, I prefer to take a back seat, since I assume I might not be in the position to discuss politics of a place that, let's face it, I don't know. I might discuss some superficial aspects, or how it affects places I might live in, but otherwise I assume I should not get too involved for the aforementioned reason.
[melts like the wicked witch of the west]
I'm glad that our definition of "the worst of the internet" has moved from... "the worst of the internet" to "people who by sheer force of insanity drive real life abominations".
I think the main issue with internet "irony" is you can rarely ever tell the people who are serious in their attempts at edginess. Plus I've noticed [warning: anecdotal evidence ahead] that after a while, people who sounded wildly different on a forum or whatever start to adopt other's languages, and the old guard also start to adapt the newcomers language. Eventually, outside of the unchanging distinctive markers of each poster, there's a sense of uniformity.
This sounds like a very valid position to have. I, on the other hand, have been heavily sucked in. To me, it's a very "safe" way to engage in politics as it only tangentially affects me and I have to admit that a lot of the time I treat it as (sorry, GMH) a form of entertainment.
Well, or at the very least I used to, when my viewpoints almost always directly aligned with the Democratic party. Now I'm stuck in a force of habit in a game I barely even like.
But there is also a sense in a lot of the international media to frame whatever is happening in terms of the US, I'd say, so it's an easy game to get wrapped up in if you really do care about international politics. For example, digging deep into British politics requires a standing habit of checking British news media, and so on.
There's already too much sarcasm on the internet. I don't need to add to it.
No need to apologize; sometimes I do too. Just a form of entertainment that has real life consequences.
(When you treat it as entertainment without real life consequences, you get a shitposting president.)
I feel like that when it comes to foreign countries (especially politics) but I make an exception out of the US, I've been followed it long enough and it's influential enough worldwide to affect me that I often feel I'm missing out something if I step aside. It's when it comes to other countries that I feel out of place and shouldn't get aside lest I fall for the same impertinent ignorance many foreigners do when it comes to mine.
As for sarcasm, irony etc. at some point the "it's just a prank bro" principle got hijacked by internet... I don't want to say activists but I guess it fits. Anyhow they'll throw that excuse even when it's clear the point is not about making anybody laugh (through edgy or otherwise), including the pranksters themselves, but about pushing an agenda without having to stand up for it an defend it. That's not new I guess but nowadays it seems more widespread, deliberate, brazen and "organized".
I'm not a fan of Jair Bolsonaro, and in fact he's a politician whose style is very much around the top of my least preferred styles, but I don't believe that the G7 approved this offer without considering the pros and cons first. Obviously, the Amazon rainforest is burning and that is as Bad as it gets on this planet.
However, attempting to sway the domestic policy of a strongman, one shown to not exactly care if what he says matches reality as long as it seems like he's coming from a position of strength, without consulting him at any point, was always doomed to fail.
For the foreseeable future, current human civilization is very much based on the tenets of self-determination for nation states, so attempting to introduce blatant foreign aid to a country that usually doesn't take obvious literal donations from other governments (IMF loans and other stuff notwithstanding) seems like a really weird plan.
Seems the Brazilian government is considering taking an alternative $12m aid package from the UK, and a $8m one from Canada, which sure is one way to be obtuse about things.
There's a whole thread to this, FYI.
This is the latest instance.
https://www.michiganradio.org/post/activists-say-clean-water-rule-repeal-threatens-great-lakes-wetlands-drinking-water
No, it's not just Michigan where this is happening, as the rule applies nationally, but this is just one report about it.
(The sad part about the reporting on this story is that the half-hour national news, probably the CBS Evening News, basically just said "The Trump administration repealed a clean water rule implemented by the Obama administration. Environmentalists say that this will have negative impacts on rivers, while farmers and ranchers opposed this rule on the basis that it was excessive regulation." And then no more details.)
Plus, Beto O'Rourke said some things about gun control the other day and that's way more important than clean drinking water.
You know, I do understand the position of "over-regulation", but sometimes it's better to err on the side of caution (ie red lines that should not be crossed so there are consequences if they are) vs the side of "Oh, yeah, we'll trust our citizens to do what's best for the environment. Especially the ones with a vested interest in doing the opposite".
This whole gun thing has gotten weird. I understand that the current system of record-keeping is terrible and partly force-analogued, and it needs to be better. I don't understand the playing-to-the-base strategy that anybody who advocates better gun record measures is going with, because the base already agrees with you.
Sometimes it feels as if advocates for gun control know if they spoke to the pro-gun side, they might achieve something, and that would mean they need to focus their attentions elsewhere/find new material.
I mean, understandably the NRA is a giant lobby for guns, and it frequently carries out hitjobs on politicians who move from the party line, but continuous attempts at engaging in real dialogue with those influenced by it would change things way more than designating them a terrorist group and tying loose associations between them and mass shooters.
As far as I know, the NRA is basically AIPAC for guns, and even AIPAC has been kicked down a notch in the past few years (though not exactly in ways I approve of).
oh this i approve ofWell, then talking to each other should indeed prove effective! I mean, as much as everybody loves to rag on career politicians, they tend to be good at their jobs rather than the total opposite.