Attacking the messenger without addressing the message shows just how fucking wacko you are...
Clearly, since you have nothing contrary to say about the actual article, it must be making decent points.

Wasn't #unsubTB a tuberculosis awareness hashtag?

(i'm not great at detecting sarcasm so just in case it isn't)

It started as an anti Totalbiscuit hashtag because he retweeted a charity he was partnered with. The owners of the charity started flipping their shit because a decent potion of TBs fans are gg.
The hastag unsubtb was created to sabotage TB. Within no time GG had hijacked it and turned it into TBC (tuberculosis) awareness.

That's not wacko - that's human
If Justin Beiber had an important message for me about the environment, I wouldn't listen because he's Justin fucking Beiber!

How reasonable of them! I think there are like 10+ hashtags the antis created to end/ discredit GG and none of them have fared any better than their arguments; they just fall flat on their faces.
But you'll still listen to humans; and if a human you hated conveyed the message; anyone would at least listen.

Who is also about to be Roasted on Comady Central 5 days from now :D

I'd recommend a good recipe but I don't condone Cannibalism unless there's no other food. ;P

Human ? Nah, I don't think so.

To me, it sounds more like narrow-mindedness possibly leading to zealotry.

If there is some environmental controversy here, and Bieber happens to have an important message about it, I won't cover my ears and run away. I'll just listen, read his arguments ( and, yeah, I'll take them with a huuuge pinch of salt, since Bieber isn't well known for his environmental fights...) and check things I find interesting.

Same thing with that wacko Sarkeesian. Near all of her arguments are utterly bullshit and her hate of masculinity or men is frankly hard to miss (remember the tweet of hers where she linked the mass killing of Elliot Rodger to... wait for it... men and their "toxic" masculinity ! ).
But hey, if she is involved in a controversy, I'll just read what she had to say and judge for myself if she raised some good points or if it is the usual overinflated, misguided and accusatory mumbo jumbo.

So... All in all, I find the "I won't read it, nananananana" stance just plainly stupid.

Two reaxxion articles here, let's cover articles and context consecutively.

(1) Elizabeth Fogarty interview.

1.1 Article content

In the interview Fogarty praises how women are treated excellently in gaming communities, calls the removal of litigable content from 4chan and reddit 'censorship', furthers the usual purposeful misunderstanding of an art critique as too subjective 'cherry picking', endulges in third hand slutshaming based on extremely questionable slutshaming blog posts, teases the conspiracy theory that Anita Sarkeesian would be involved in Intel's hiring decisions in any way, and wonders at length about why the "mainstream media" would ever report negatively on a months-long shitstorm named after a slutshaming tweet.

What's missing here is the usual ritual evocation of the SJW/cultural Marxist enemy figure, but just about every other reaxxion article has that in abundance. It can still serve as a good overview of "what gamergate is about", while the link was given with the intent to disprove exactly that.


1.2 Context of the link

Fogarty continued her abstinence from the huge conspiracy theory when she was doxxed, as I've detailed just a few pages ago. She has made abundantly clear that she does not make any kind of ominous 'anti-gg' enemy figure responsible for the doxx. She was doxxed not by a "side", but by an individual: As we have witnessed in this very thread just a few pages ago, this part is often cut out of the statement by gamergate supporters in order to serve as a prototypical instance of "anti-gg" doxxing. Which, uhm, just happened on 8chan of all boards. The moderators of that board somehow aren't too fond of anyone including Lizzy. 8chan defensive commentary reads as follows: Thankfully, Fogarty is on her feet again, taking a job offer from the Escapist. Which, coincidentally, shows Klumpen's assumption that the doxx "scared her away from the whole affair" to be factually incorrect.



(2) TotalBiscuit article


2.1 Article content

reaxxion is shocked and saddened by TotalBiscuit receiving a "death wish" over retweeting a charity livestream.


2.2 Context

John Bain "TotalBiscuit" retweeted the schedule for a game livestream marathon by The AbleGamers. This tweet was certainly made in good faith originally, but in the entirely naive assumption that 'gamers' as a whole would still want anything to do with him. Bain has been a gamergate figurehead for some time and specializes in derogatory and insulting tweets pulling multiple strawmen at the same time.

Needless to say, AbleGamers absolutely didn't like his endorsement. Their reaction was less than kind. Bain, in playing or being the unsuspecting fool, wondered how his tweet could ever be interpeted as something undesired. A rhetorical question altogether: Bain's been continuously pouring fuel into a fire that burns video games to the societal/cultural ground of irrelevance. His followers were quite simply not welcome at AbleGamers' livestream.

There was an actual tweeter unrelated to the AbleGamers, writing up crappy stuff about Bain's illness ("aren't you supposed to be dying?" "Enjoy chemo"). Which is extremely and utterly vile, no doubt about that, but compared to the sheer number of threats Sarkeesian and Quinn have received on a daily basis for years, reaxxion is making a huge reach in their direct comparison.

Are you actually trying to push your opinions as objective facts?

i get the shivers because i fear my pokemon will be badly poisoned

Are you actually defending whatever Reaxxion says as 'objective facts'?
Well done on finally figuring out how to the the 'reply' button though!

Well, here are the tweets of Sarkeesian :

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3pyhjtj-6iY/VEuFxrTBFOI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/eFMTQiC3MaI/s1600/femfreqsexism1.PNG

I frankly find these utterly disgusting.

That's one of the numerous reasons why I view her as an hateful extremist more than anything else.

But the thing is... I just view her as she is: a radical extremist feminist who completely twisted the feminist movement to fit her ludicrous views. She's just one of these rotten apples which spoils the whole feminist basket.

And speaking of Rodger. Yes, he was a misogynist maniac. But what people like Sarkeesian totally eludes is that, above all else, he was a mentally deranged and resentful psychopath who found his own scapegoats.

Linking the deeds of a psychopath to "men and their toxic masculinity" is like linking murder to black people and their toxic racial behaviours or infanticide to women and their toxic feminity.
Total madness.

If it doesn't have their men's rights activist pepper sprinkled over it and if they actually provide reasons and facts; why should I not? Not like the antiGGs have any lack of bias or objective sources. But lets not deviate; ARE YOU TRYING TO PUSH YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION AS OBJECTIVE FACT? And do you intend to intend to tell them only your side and tell your new recruits nothing of facts on the other side?

Yes; I am quite a maser at whatever this means : ''Well done on finally figuring out how to the the 'reply' button though!''
WHILE EATING ICE-CREAM!