Fenixp: So, who's going to provide support, server space and quality assurance for patches for all those games, all of which GOG does? You? I don't think you realize just how many games are routinely sent to GOG for sale, and that every single game on sale actually comes with running costs. Thanks for the insults tho, always brighten up my evening :-)

gunsynd: Another one.

tinyE: Except for Cubs fans. Fuck em all and I say we nuke Wrigley.

DarkStormErx: Again doesn't make any sense and is a retarded analogy since it's supposed to be a game store that features a variety of different games from different genres and banning games sorely for the excuse of not being "quality"" is purely childish and an idiotic move since the option should be left to the consumers who actually, you know, are the ones spending their money. They did this sorely due to political reasons, why else would they not want to sell games people voted for and wanted.

Nipoti: DarkStormErx bug catcher wants to fight!

tinyE: No. Absolutely not. I never said that and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

Everyone who uses the term "SJW" is just really really fucking annoying. :D

That's why I insisted on a kick in the nuts. It's quick, effective, get's your point across, and doesn't cause any permanent damage.

DarkStormErx: Probably one of the most idiotic comparisons I've read online.

But yes, when I ate there when I was a kid. Not anymore since I'm into Strength training and healthy food. I don't get what you and Fenixp are getting at. Sure they have the decision and right to what gets on their store, just like how I have my decisions not to support such practice. If they were really for freedom they would allow most games and let gamers decide, which by the way, they did but didn't follow through.

dick1982: call me an ironical intolerant racist hypocrite, but i won't want the people in the thread calling us "SJWs" kicking me in the nuts though. it has to be one-way. me kicking nuts. but my own nuts stay safe and fresh.
dick1982: i'll buy you a strap-on if you don't find that sexist.

monkeydelarge: I guess there is no need for me to warn you about tinyE. I'm sure, now you are well aware that he is the village idiot.

Dalswyn: And that warning is delivered, courtesy of... ?

Ophelium: He was kicked out of his village a long time ago and they don't want him back. So...probably itinerant idiot?

Telika: Think of the words used, what they imply, who they are used by. It's neither original nor innocent. Have you ever heard hysterical "SWJ conspiracies" and SWJ labels in other contexts ? Do you think that people going crazy about 'hatred' (and i am sorry, but only the hatred fans are going crazy about hatred here : as mentionned by both sides of the argument to illustrate opposite things, if gog was selling this game here the "forum outrage" would not be comparable at all) have just one shitty game in mind, and aren't just rolling on the momentum of a general feeling of "oppression by the SJW" ? Who are constantly playing the huge victims of "political correctness" ? Where does the expression "political correctness" actually stems from and why ?

This whole psychodrama is broader than this shooter, and this shooter gets overblown as a pathetic little symbol of something else (which it exclusively capitalizes on, making it an automated wallet-vacuum-sucker for idiots, because that's what its business plan amounts to). It is fueled by the frustration of all those who already feel super persecuted by sexism-being-a-thing and other consequence of our society's increasing self-awareness on societal issues. The reflex of screaming "SJW" and barking at "censorship" was already present, and well trained by other pseudo-martyrdoms in different contexts. The whole thought structure, the lexicon, the attitudes, thr rhetorics, it's directly imported to this discussion - or rather the opposite, the question of gog-selling-hatred is directly imported into that big vague protest against the increasing ridicule attached to reactionary clichés, a vague protest with its already-honed code and vocabulary.

The only real offensive thing about 'hatred' is its bet-on-cretins business plan. The hatred-centered question is purely a commercial question : the "right" to sell in every shop (!?) any shit cheaply capitalizing on any trend (here, the pre-existing anti-"SWJ" neurosis) because oh noes one shop not selling my product is an intolerable infrigement on free market. The whole "political" argument around it ("it is censorship on the freedom of expressions on art and ideas and we would totally call amnesty international if they weren't such SJWs") is just an irrelevant, self-serving, hijacking of more important values, on the same mode as the rhetorics of reactionary creeps when they consider they don't get enough media visibility ("stop being intolerant to intolerance").

You used to mock libertarianism, and its rhetorics of pseudo-freedom dismissing everything else. But it is exactly what is at stake here. Both through the pseudo-"freedom of expression" (an old fallacy on so many level : freedom of expression neither is an absolute value nor is endangered in this specific context), and through the obligation to sell whatever product everywhere (there is no such a thing, and there shouldn't be, despite of the freemarket=democray=freemarket rhetorics). "OH NOES SJW DICTATORSHIP" is just the packaging here, but heck, it's flashy, and super flattering (in a very you-are-the-social-justice-warrior way, actually), and it sells. Super well. On some people. Who are not even that numerous after all, desite of the noise they make.

The double standard is, as often pointed out, in why the rejection of a 'hatred' generates a reaction that much more violent than the rejection of a vastly superior 'braid'. Check what notions get mobilised in the defense of 'hatred', and this double standard is explained by the gamergate-ish controversies that have been running and growing in parallel. And these gamergate-ish controversies are deeply rooted in the most archaic reactionary rearguard. The parallels in rhetorics are not fortuitous. It is just a ridiculous mutual piggybacking - with a coin slot on one side.

So yes, the borrowing of arguments and terminologies is quite telling of what is actually at stake, here. Beyond the idiotic a-game-is-not-sold-by-gog anecdote, which, by itself, would have generated only a couple of lines.

tinyE: What exactly was the point of him telling me he is into strength training? :P

-Hey pal, what time is it?
-Half past three, I own a Porsche.

Huh?