twitter.comPosted Nov 15, 2014, 12:55 PM UTC
They looked past Milo, Cernovich, Roosh and other far-right alpha males insisting that gamers are pathetic losers in order to embrace the enemy-of-my-enemy philosophy in regard to feminism. It'll be amusing to see how they try to weasel themselves out of this development.
The far right and the manosphere are ultimately greater enemies to them and they just can't get a grip on that. Even if they achieve their impossible goal of smashing feminism (lol) their dudebro allies are going to turn on them so fast their heads will spin. In political terms, a "useful idiot" is the pejorative for someone who is used as a puppet for an ideology. GamerGaters are useful idiots in a political struggle much older than them.
https://twitter.com/ImmaterialName/status/533489799630700544
"He's wrong, but it is inarguable that he has an opinion."
I thought GG hated opinions?
It's not a woman's opinion, so it's fine.
I love the reply:
You could say this about literally any dumb thing that someone thinks.
"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
This reminds me of George W. Bush's "at least I made decisions."
It is so telling that to right-wingers, "Marxist" is an insulting term.
Yes, that TERRIBLE Marxist internet that doesn't want to give preferential treatment to the rich. How terrible.
Please try to rein in your anti-rich people bigotry! XD
truly, the rich are the demographic that is actually oppressed.
Hey now, they worked hard for that daddy's money
"Equalism" just doesn't have the same ring to it that "Marxism" has. And not due to lack of trying. Turns out people generally like equality.
equity~ capitalism
It's not unexpected, but still very facepalm-worthy.
Though, I already know the reactions, as people have excused away a lot of transphobia and ethical issues in the same manner...
.
"So what if he's against our interests on this issue that actually matters? So what if we don't agree on much of anything and he's possibly hurting everything I hold dear? Is he actually a replicant born of dark magic and alien science? I don't know, maybe? What do I care? If he agrees on GG, then he's awwright with me. That's just how welcoming GG is."
.
It's funny because Adam Baldwin actually did play an alien/replicant thing on X-Files.
To me he was always the scariest recurring character on that show. It was actually weird to see him play human characters later.
I'm so surprised that the guy who called Snowden a traitor is against an evil Marxist agenda like net neutrality. I wonder who the real authoritarian is in this situation.
Wait, never mind. It's clearly the SJWs.
Oh I am screaming. How many Gaters are suddenly gonna hide their faces over this?
Answer: none. All aboard the rationalization train! Clearly this tweet was meant to mean the direct opposite of what it says!
We don't have many friends!
So now we gotta keep them all...
So all aboard the rationalization train!
I had a gator on Twitter tell me that in all seriousness. It doesn't matter what other idiotic, abhorrent things they believe, as long as they support GG they're fine.
No, they'll still be on his side. They've made that dumbass argument to me many times, especially when I asked why the fuck we (at the time I was a GGer) wanted Todd Kincannon to be a "voice for our movement". I was told "Oh, well, it doesn't matter what else he said he's on our side".
As I've said before, I went right from the thread where I was told that to GamerGhazi, rofl. That argument is pure bullshit. To give a Godwinian example:
"Who cares what else Hitler did? He's pro our movement!"
[deleted]
Cheong? That was the Jeopardy guy right?
An easy mistake to make. You might have confused Cheong and Chu because they both wear glasses...
You know it.
[deleted]
Okay, now let's see any female post the exact same tweet and see the outrage that happens.
GG: "Are we the baddies?"
Adam and Milo act like cartoon villains
GG: "...We're the baddies."
Aurini can bring the skulls!
And Owen can bring his couch so they can all lounge together and practice their evil laughs.
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL SHELF
BELTS FOR THE BELT COUCH
My first reaction was that this should open the eyes of some of the people blinded by this mess, but honestly I really believe this was just characters like Milo / Baldwin / etc playing the long con. GloomyGrump has never been about video games and it was also never (just) about big bad feminism. It's been about astroturfing an entire movement to sow the seeds for future conservative / right wing voices / voters.
Take a segment of a demographic that is "on the fence" / not typically into politics but easily riled up, create enemies out of the left: claim that they're coming to take your hobby, that feminist have created a war on men, etc etc. And then step in as an ally. People who a year ago were railing for neutrality / to stop corporations from taking over, now look at it and say "Well Uncle Adam says that this is bad and he was right about GG. Maybe I should listen to him."
When GlooberGams finally dies down, they'll be a lot less involved than when it was first conceived but those that remain will be vocal mouth pieces that are open to whatever suggestion conservatives whisper to them.
It was never about video games, it was about bringing the tea party to a younger demographic.
So, is KiA discussing this anywhere?
Like someone else said, it's worrisome and potentially dangerous. Fact is, GallantGavins might just hop on board the anti-net neutrality train and any additional support for anti-net neutrality may help sway public opinion. It's the fence-sitters vulnerable to misinformation, aka moderates, aka the people who politicians listen to, who could determine the outcome on net neutrality.
Garble Gators aren't a big enough movement for that. But, if they're delusional enough to be willing to kill games, the hardcore ones might be delusional enough to go along with this as well.
They had a NN discussion on KiA the day before. Ended up in a few slapfights. Quite entertaining.
fucking lol
#gamergate's heroes in one tweet pic.twitter.com ^[Imgur]
[^[Mistake?]](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=TweetPoster&subject=Error%20Report&message=http://reddit.com/2mdjtk%0A%0APlease leave above link unaltered.) ^[Suggestion] ^[FAQ] ^[Code] ^[Issues]
[deleted]
What you're saying would make sense if Baldwin and co. were saying reasonable things about Net Neutrality or making measured critiques of the President's stance.
Instead they're doing a hatchet job on the entire issue using pavlovian buzzwords coded to get the conservative base frothing at the mouth. You don't have to be a 'totalitarian' --also great use of buzzwords, btw--to realize that what they're doing is underhanded.
And because I couldn't resist: "[B]illion dollar political juggernaut that is feminism" in a country with unequal pay, bad ratios of women in government to population, no paid maternity leave, and piss poor rates of maternal mortality. Right on.
[deleted]
the schadenfreude is so delicious and sweet i think i'm going to get diabeetus
[deleted]
That seems a little harsh. Perhaps the wood chipper could give them gender neutral constructive criticism instead.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's a difference between agreeing someone on one issue and letting that person be the voice of your movement. Also consider that net neutrality is very related to the gaming industry, so it's not a completely separate issue.
As a random example, I can agree with Hitler that dogs were awesome, but I wouldn't let him be the de facto leader of my "save the dogs" movement. Political opinions don't exist outside a vacuum!
I see a lot of confusion on this thread and generally on what pro free market people believe. Nobody who strongly believes in the free market (like me) believes there is no role for government as a referee. At the absolute minimum, everyone knows that competition will eventually yield a winner of that competition, and at that point government has to step in to break up the ensuing monopoly. Free market proponents (like me) know this and are strongly in favor of this. Millennials will not recall personally (and may not know in many cases) that there used to be only one phone company in the USA, ATT (or Ma Bell). It was broken up, and it was broken up by another company (MCI) filing a lawsuit. It was a perfect example as government in its role as referee, which again all (or most) free market proponents understand and support. There are many examples, Standard Oil being the most famous.
Now, within its role as referee and regulator, reasonable people can disagree as to what the precise level of regulation should be. But nobody thinks there should be no role for government. There is a wide spectrum, even amongst free market proponents, as to what the proper level is.
Net neutrality is simply an issue where some free market people believe there should be some regulation and others don't. There are of course those that don't understand economic history and believe the government should have a huge role in the economy, and those of course are also on the side of net neutrality as well. But opinions differ amongst those who are pro free market (the rational side of humanity) as well.
Personally I am against it, for in order to have first class broadband infrastructure you have to invest, and for companies to invest they need a return, at least for a while, on that investment. This is the way all private investment is done in a competitive environment. After the companies make their money back plus a return then you can consider regulating it IF the service has no competition. It remains to be seen that there will be no competition, things are evolving rapidly, so it is very possible there will be competition for broadband from satellites, drones, mobile towers, etc that don't need a pipe into the home. There is no need to regulate just yet in my view. Again, reasonable people can disagree on this.
But that is largely the case (they get returns, lots of returns) and it's not competitive. That's one of the huge issues right now.
Telecommunication companies in the US are among the most profitable companies even though companies like Comcast have among the worst business reputations. They get away with it through widescale collusion (among other telecommunication companies) and throwing a lot of money at the government. There's a reason why, at best, most people have maybe one or two choices as far as internet service provider. There's another reason why these companies see Google as a huge threat. And another reason why no one particularly thought of the Time Warner-Comcast merge as an issue because they were already colluding to stay out of each other's turf.
Once again, for a movement about "ethics", they sure seem to not care about ethics.
Don't forget the American public funded the development of existing infrastructure these companies are monopolizing.
There's a reason why, at best, most people have maybe one or two choices as far as internet service provider.
...Which is?
It doesn't help that there's very few choices, they all charge the same and provide the same terrible service and depending on where you live, you may not even HAVE a choice.
Cell phone service is as bad.
Nobody who strongly believes in the free market (like me) believes there is no role for government as a referee.
Except, of course, for every Austrian economist, and other believers in the Austrian School. Or are Anarcho-Capitalists No True Capitalists™?
But opinions differ amongst those who are pro free market (the rational side of humanity)
You don't have a monopoly on being the "rational side of humanity". There have been plenty of rational socialists, and even rational communists.
I'd be inclined to suggest that austrian economics is more like a religion than an economic theory :)
They are a very small subset, so let's say overwhelming majority.
You really think socialism and communism are valid economic models? Really? I won't try to argue with you, if economic history up til this point has not convinced you then any arguments I give won't convince you either.
[deleted]
They are a very small subset, so let's say overwhelming majority.
This was once the case, but I don't believe it is anymore. The Austrian School, absurd as it is (you don't get to be correct once ), has only gotten more popular since 2008. The majority of those who believe "strongly" in the free market (in the US, at least; I can't say for elsewhere) are garden variety conservatives with little knowledge of economics in general, and less of economic history.
You really think socialism and communism are valid economic models?
Note: I didn't actually state my own opinion. I simply stated that all sides of an economic model have had rational people on their side. FFS, Einstein was a Socialist, and I somehow doubt you'd try to claim Einstein was on the "irrational side of humanity" (unless, of course, you're about to go full Ayn Rand/Leonard Peikoff). Since you've demonstrated difficulty in reading for comprehension, note that I'm not saying socialism is valid because Einstein was a proponent. I'm simply saying that one need not be a capitalist to be rational.
Only as valid as capitalism, yes. The unrestrained forms of both Capitalism or Communism have historically proven to be destructive, and terrible systems to live under. The sort of system I'd support is a mix of capitalism and socialism, as both systems have areas in which they excel (luxury goods and most general economic services for capitalism, and more society specific things like healthcare, education, and defense for socialism). I'm an economic pragmatist. I support whatever works to make a more fair and opportune society.
[deleted]
In principle, Comcast has a big incentive to improve infrastructure.
In practice they get more money by sitting around, so the infrastructure improvement, although it does happen, only happens in trickles.
Anyway, if the Standard Oil issue were being debated today, I believe only a small minority of libertarians would support breaking it up. The most noticeable voice — not just a shrill minority, but the general consensus — would be one of support for Standard Oil. (And the minority would feel it had to justify its opinion by pointing to ways in which the government supports Standard Oil, not by suggesting that trust-busting can be acceptable on general principles.)
It just hurts. How anyone could be against net neutrality is beyond me. Absolutely fucking beyond me.
Does he even understand net neutrality? Or is he just in general, as a knee-jerk response, against anything that even slightly tastes of equality?
I was just about to say that neutrality probably sounds too much like equality to him.
Obama (f'ing finally) supported it, therefore it's evil.
He did? About goddamn time.
He took a stand against the Comcast crony he appointed, Tom Wheeler, but net neutrality is by no means safe.
He's a far right winger. Their philosophy is anti-net neutrality.
Plus as a right winger, yes, he's against anything that seems like equality.
This is the thing I don't get: whyyyy?
I mean, sure, if you're in the pocket of a telecomm it makes sense, you're gonna be getting something from it, but for everyone else it's nothing but lose. Your bill isn't going to go down, your speed isn't going to go up, and tons of sites you use that are on shaky financial grounds are going to disappear. The next Tumblr or Twitter will probably just not exist because they won't be able to pay the highway fees in order to access the market.
I mean, even frikkin' Breitbart stands to lose more than they would gain from the deal.
I don't know if this is his reasoning, but a lot of far right wingers are very essentially dedicated to the notion that businesses should basically have free reign to do anything outside of what's defined in the original Bill of Rights. There's this notion in capitalism (favored heavily of course by libertarians and many conservatives) that where the rights of a business and the rights of a consumer conflict, the rights of the business owner supersede the rights of the consumer because the business owner has a legal right to own the business, but the consumer doesn't have a legally guaranteed right to use that business. The consumer should instead move on and use another business. In principle, capitalists would suggest that any bad business practice will ultimately be punished by the invisible hand of the market. These same thoughts extend to how business are run internally, such as employer/employee as opposed to business/consumer.
Anyway, a lot of these people are pretty hardcore in believing this, right down to believing that there shouldn't be any laws AT ALL which affect how business owners operate their businesses. This shit extends so far as that some libertarians actively want to repeal Civil Rights laws and amendments and allow businesses to legally discriminate against employees and consumers based on race/gender/etc.
Net Neutrality to these people is an overstepping of government authority. They believe that ISPs should legally have the right to operate however they want, and if a business is run poorly, then a new better ISP will naturally emerge in the market and people will leave Comcast/AT&T/whoever in favor of it. In which case these people who are anti-Net Neutrality aren't necessarily in favor of the current ISPs, and they aren't necessarily in favor of businesses slowing content, blocking content, etc. They just believe that businesses should legally be allowed to, and these businesses will be punished by loss of customers rather than by the government.
Of course this is all horseshit. Government oversight is incredibly important because businesses can and will do everything to hurt consumers if it's better for their immediate profits. See the meat industry 100 years ago for an example.
EDIT: I want to loop back on the thing about Civil Rights laws for a second. I don't feel like I ever see it discussed on Reddit, but I want to pause for a moment and say "What the fuck." Seriously, it's a thing among libertarians and other capitalists that they believe the United States would be better if we repealed Civil Rights laws. Like, they actively think to themselves, "Man, the United States sure would be better if we allowed Best Buy to post a "We don't sell to coloreds, we don't hire coloreds" sign in their window. Between the two options of allowing legal racism in business or preventing it, allowing it is definitely better."
How fucked up is that. How fucked up is libertarianism that they think this shit can work outside of a bubble.
But their masters will gain! And isn't that what's really important?
Or maybe it's that their masters will gain and might drop some crumbs down to them. Feeding once again into the temporarily embarrassed millionaire trope of why regular people fall for right wing political tactics.
I dunno. That's a great question. Pose it to ELI5 or something. I'd love to see the responses.
Who says Milo "I let my own company go bust so I didn't have to pay my employees" Yiannopoulos is even capable of looking that far ahead?
Because libertarianism turns capitalism into a religion, and thou shalt never question "the free market".
That is exactly why. Why would tumblr or twitter desire competition? Of course they're going to be against it. Remember who's on the other side? Google. Because Google+ failed, and they make their money with a search engine, a browser and an operating system. They'd rather buy the next tumblr or twitter than ensure a monopoly in a market they only have youtube in and all their other products are reliant on.
Breitbart dot com
[deleted]
He's a ostensibly a tech writer so I assume he'd have at least a basic understanding of net neutrality.
When you can make billions with a monopoly, you'd be against it, too.
I'm one of those people who would happily give up 75% of her income if it meant nobody in my country would go without adequate shelter, food, and healthcare, so nope. There are rich philanthropists out there!
It's very simple political coalition. In exchange for supporting corrupt policies of the rich fuckers, the reactionaries will receive legitimacy and credence for their prejudiced views in the political sphere. Now something that any civilized person would consider as irrational hate speech is accepted as legit political view.
Well if you believe in free market capitalism net neutrality is rather anti free market.
Free market capitalism has to be regulated to keep it free. These are the kind of nuances that people who are PRO CAPITALISM AT ALL COSTS don't understand.
A truly free market would almost certainly devolve into a monopoly eventually. The idea of self-regulation is laughable
This is something I can never pound adequately into the heads of libertarians I know. Capital is what's used to create more capital. In the absence of regulation or taxation and with government enforcement of private control of property, there is literally no way that the capital will NOT eventually aggregate once there's any inequality in how it's held. It's not even just a commercial thing--it's not just that one company will end up controlling an industry, it's that eventually we end up with everything in the country owned by effectively a single party, and everybody else only allowed to use it insofar as their use furthers the interests of that single party. It might take awhile to get there, but essentially you hit a point where the only way capital redistributes is by falling into the hands of the grossly incompetent. This is just how money works.
It's like people have already forgotten what happened when we let Enron make their own rules. That happened within the span of just a few years. Do the same thing across the board and let it run for a few centuries and if your family isn't already billionaires, chances are pretty good your descendants not only won't be able to get HD video off of Netflix, they won't even still be able to vote.
You were downvoted within 7 minutes. All them progressive Gaters must be lurking early this morn.
That's pretty much the natural end result of free market capitalism. Capitalism benefits those who hold capital.
[deleted]
Libertards have a shallow understanding of actual economics. THey believe in a magical ghost, the Invisible Hand.
Downvoted for "-tard" suffix. This is 2014, don't use it.
It's anti-unrestricted free market capitalism. aka. out of control/unregulated capitalism.
Net Neutrality is an effort to defend the integrity of a necessary service to the nation, and it is in such instances that consumers, through the government, must take some necessary action.
I consider the free market important, and to counter its pitfalls while supporting its positives, sometimes the government must take some action.
You know what else is anti free market? The fact that every provider of high-speed Internet - read: cable companies - has colluded to ensure they don't have any competition between themselves. If it were possible to have a vibrant free market for internet service, net neutrality would be the norm, and up until recently it was. The people saying we should avoid net neutrality regulation in the name of the "free market" are selectively considering the market to reach their conclusion.
Net neutrality is supposed to defend the internet as a free market, which sounds way more valuable than defending the free market of ISP cronyism.
Actually, net neutrality is pro-free market. It allows the Internet to remain equal for every startup.
The dilemma here is that the market is the Internet. For it to remain free, we must regulate the people overseeing the market to keep it free.
They don't seem to have a problem with cable providers having anti-competitive local monopolies on cable service.
That's because they think monopolies only exist when the state creates them, when they are bad. Except when they exist without the state creating them, when they are good.
Great, so when Comcast and the other gigantic near-monopolists cease to exist then we won't need government-enforced net neutrality.
But until then, we fucking do, because sensible government regulation > giant corporate monopoly power
That's kind of like saying everyone being able to sail in the same ocean is anti-free market.
BECAUSE OBAMA. I wish I was kidding.
Because Obama is for it, because a lot of senators were paid to be against it and because we live at a time where the word "government" makes peoples minds shut down.
$
If you are well informed you have to admit that there are some common carrier provisions which won't work perfectly...
... but Nero's level of vitriol on the subject is pants on head ignorant.
Most people don't understand net neutrality, pro or anti. Go read about the telecommunications deregulation in the 90's before you assume you know what net neutrality is about.
I keep my toe in ESR's blog to keep up with the right libertarian perspective, and this is what he said about it 6 years ago.