Someone lodged a right to info appeal and got some info about FBI's investigation of GG : http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/12/fbi-closed-gamergate-case-due-to-no-actionable-leads-evidence/18282/

The only person even marginally linked to GG they found was Mr.Repzion, who was false flagged and someone also had a doppelganger twitter account.

The parties that sent the harassing emails were behind proxies and the FBI suspects many of them to be sent by the same person from smurf email accounts due to similarity of vocabulary.

Also, Anita cancelled a talk even though the police said it was safe : https://twitter.com/whenindoubtdo/status/806010051869679616 Milking those victimbux.

Pulling the Nazi card...it sure makes you look like a doofus. Because when you can't make a decent argument, it's time to call people Nazis because...because...because...you have nothing...

By the way, you should look up the definition of "complete" in the dictionary. Of course, you wouldn't know that there are black characters in the game since all you know is what your echo chamber tells you. It's just that you crazies think they are under-represented in a medieval fantasy world based on 13th century Poland. You know, the country of the author of the book series...

As I see it, GoG seems fine with clueless people who've lost a few too many brain cells like you. You need to lay off the dope, man.

REMINDER: SocJus "diversity" is more about exclusion than inclusion & that's one reason SocJus can not handle fighting a group that is truly diverse (all walks of life, hearts, minds) & unified by the love for their hobby.

It makes me think of a Ghost in the Shell quote (1995, eng dub)

“If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation...It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.”
- Major Motoko Kusanagi

EDIT: IN short, GG is about "hate" about as much as BLM (US) is about being pro-police

Nice troll post.

Also, it's quite funny how the rise of the extreme left (anti-GGs and SJWs especially) has made me stop considering myself as left myself. I feel ashamed to once feel part of a group that is clearly quite insane these days. Every US election so far, I've rooted for the democrats - because the republicans were clearly the worst choice. With Trump appearing on the scene, I at first laughed and said there was no way he'd get elected ... until they put Hillary Clinton opposite him. Someone who, to me, is republican in all but title. Deceitful, abusing power, war mongering, etc. Next to her, Trump actually didn't look so bad.

And it made me realize: the left really fucked up. They wanted a woman, even if it was a megalomaniac that no-one could trust. They made it a gender issue, a race issue, when it really was all about people being sick of being called racist and sexist. People who were sick of white guilt, of white culture being considered a sin and up for destruction, of white america being a slave to the minorities who could do no wrong. Huge mobs of black life matters supporters chanting for the death of police men is perfectly fine. Saying you're proud of your culture is not. They voted an idiot into power just to make sure the SJW uprising would be halted. That's how bad it has gotten.

So for all the SJWs calling Gamergaters right wingers and sexist, it's funny because I think they'd be surprised how many consider(ed) themselves to be leftwing ... until the left made it so hard to feel at home.

Don't mix up people calling themselves "left" with Left. Left is where the the heart is. Left is always about inclusion, while right is about exclusion. The International vs the National, the Humanism versus the Sexism (which includes nowaday's so-called Feminism), Racism, whatever.

Left is not about tolerance towards people who are not tolerant themselves. SWJ are not tolerant. Radical muslim are not tolarant. Any radicals are not tolerant, not even those calling themselves "left".

Left means: Everybody's needs fulfilled (as much as possible), everybody's abilities put to use (as efficiently as possible). With as little control as needed (that's what Marx's followers got wrong...). Power to the people themselves, be they gay or straight, male or female, whatever colour or preferences.

Actually, I kinda disagree: the whole right/left wing comes from the French revolution, with the powers-that-be (aristocrats, church) on the right and commoners on the left. But of course the term has evolved from there and is used as each person finds appropriate, to the point where it hardly means anything to me these days. I always interpreted it as the right being the ones wanting to preserve the status quo (conservatives) while the left wanting to change things for the better (progressives). And therefore, you have a monolithic right wing agreeing that things are fine as they are with a very divided left as "changing for the better" is very subjective and each group has a different opinion on what that change should be. So I see SJWs as left, albeit a very different left from my own. In fact, the term regressives would apply in that the changes they propose would bring us back, completely opposed to both the changes I'd like to see happen AND the no changes policy of the right.

1- I didn't know the left/right stemmed from the French revolution.

2- "regressive" is apt in my humble opinion. from my POV it looks like we're being invaded by the inhabitants of htraE (DC comic's "Bizarro World")
(hate is love, victimhood is something to strive for instead of overcoming personal issue etc)

You're trying to claim Libertarianism is the Left? You sir are quite funny.

The classic American demarcation is Left is big government with Totalitarians on the extreme end, and Right advocates for less government with Anarcho-Capitalists on the extreme. Ergo a Leftist believes government is the solution, and a Right-winger considers it to be the problem.

There of course was also the French demarcation which was Monarchists versus Revolutionaries, which isn't particularly useful as a generalized abstract framework.

Marx was wrong because he was an unsuccessful man mired in tragedy who became submerged in the delusions of envy, and his popularity lies with Ideologues and people mired in the delusions of envy. Collectivism has been shown to fail in all experiments before and after Marx-Engel.

The simple reality is a shared responsibility is no responsibility, and ownership carries with it responsibility. Additionally as has been consistently shown human productivity isn't flat. You have a few really productive people and a lot of "meh." People mired in delusions of envy seek to tear down the highly productive people, deluding themselves just the "meh" and no responsibility actually leads anywhere productive.

Hence the political theory and values of the French Enlightenment have led to some of the most productive societies and economies in history, while Marx-Engels work has led to mass murder, starvation, and economies that are unsustainable.

This is kind of what I mean. I define what the left is one way, you define it a different way, then we get on an argument on "and you call yourself leftist with those ideas?!?!?!" Not to mention with my personal definition, what each side stands for would change with the passage of time and location. Universal sufrage would at one point have been a radical leftist idea, only to be accepted into the stablishment and become a right wing conservative point. American politics' left would probably be considered right at my place.

I honestly find it pointless getting so hung up with what right and left means, as they are way too vague, and talk about more concrete things. Right/left tribalism is not helping anyone, specially when you're supposed to defend others that identify with that same denomination.

I don't think right / left is a useful set of words to use at all. The way I see it, you have what is considered progressive being called ''Left'' and what is more conservative as ''Right''. All it does is show us what people consider to be progressive or conservative, and to push generalizations of both sides on unwitting people.

It might have been useful for describing politicians in a more police-state era of government where most matter were out of influence of the people, but now, a simple dichotomy of right and left ignores the much more complex issues like policies on public healthcare, state or national debt, foreign policy, protectionism, etc. In addition, its used so often as a term to describe someone you hate or disagree with, with the recent example of the ''alt right'', which is just about a senseless term as ''bad'' to use in a political discussion.

To me the use of such vague words in what the media tells us is political discussion is evidence that we're not really discussing anything.

No I don't. Left is about inclusion. That has nothing to do with Libertarianism on the whole. You can be left or right, liberarian or authorian, much like you can be chaotic and good or lawful and evil in classic D&D.

So you have never read Marx... Marx was first and foremost an analyst of the capitalistic economy. And his statements for the most part are correct to this day (he couldn't foresee something like the internet...). That is why Marx is taught even at the most conservative and "elite" economic schools even today.
The guy who tended towards revolution and all the stuff was Engels who rewrote quite a bit of That Capital Volume 3 after Marx' death, so that books is to be read with a grain of salt.

Also "collectivism" works pretty well on a small scale. After the fall of the German wall and the reunification those farmers who stayed in their "collectives" survived, while those who tried the market on their own have all failed. Also I know quite a lot of people who live a "commune" way of life. Works pretty well for them. Yeah... we currently see how well that works... Sounds nice in theory, but the reality is that the "productive people" are working their asses of for the unproductive people who simply own everything...

Truth.

No, it's not. Indeed Leftists are noted to be particularly adverse to Intellectual Diversity, but as an Ideologue I suppose it is only natural for you to identify a label a "good" and anything that stands in its way as "bad" in the manner of someone at a child's level of development under Piaget's framework.

As Orwell noted in 'The Road to Wigan Pier' the advocates of your Ideology do not like the Poor, they envy the Rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics
I'm sorry are you trying to claim a heterodox school of thought is mainstream, and has value? Granted you've established you're an Ideologue who thinks one of the worst economic systems is a good idea in any way shape or form. So I suppose you had to latch onto something, and as we all know the Marxist apologetics refrain is "they didn't do it right."

Incidentally as you'll note from that wikipedia article covering Marxian Economics at all is atypical enough to actually call for a list of those few universities who do cover it. Also the "you don't agree, so you must just not know about it" is an inane rhetorical device. You as an advocate of a position are expected to make the argument for your school of thought having value and/or being valid, not stamp your foot and act like a grade schooler.

We both know you have no evidence for this assertion.

Let's however break your assertion down to demonstrate how inane it actually is. So your premise here, which you state at the end is that a small group of people "simply own everything." Now from this we can assume your focus is directed on business owners, while throwing a blind eye to increased pay associated with raises, moving to higher position withing a discipline, or management. That by itself that renders your assertions untrue, but let's dig deeper.

The more fundamental problem to your argument of course is that you don't live in an Aristocracy governed by Old Wealth, who are composed exclusively of brats who would squader Daddy's wealth before they're 30. Indeed believe it or not, you can actually walk down to the relevant office and establish your own company. The Old Guard aren't going to jump out of a bush and gank you if you dare to try. Oh what's that, you're not interested in starting a business? There's a lot of risk counterbalancing the potential rewards? There's a lot of work and risk involved? I'm sorry what was that about "they just own stuff"?

Oh wait, maybe you just mean CEOs of companies that have gotten big, without taking into consideration how. Well much like any other position the position of CEO carries with it job responsibilities, and has qualifiactions. In turn a bad one can destroy a business ala Tim Cook while a good one ala Steve Jobs can turn a weak company into a powerhouse of the associated industry.

So in short, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Now if instead of making unqualified generalizations you couldn't hope to support you made an actually measured statement, like claiming pure meritocracy doesn't exist you might begin to approach having a point. You then however would actually have to look into why it doesn't exist instead of simply being an Ideologue.

General Economist thought incidentally tends to revolve around the concept of Incentives, and people responding to Incentives. Something the childishly naive notion of people working hard, naturally doesn't work with as what would then be their Incentive to do so if they aren't fairly compensated based on what they can sell their labor for? Similarly the childish notion people will only draw per their needs, because magically under Marxism no one would ever be a lazy, greedy assholes who would exploit the system despite you're biggest source of whinging being an obsession with lazy, greedy assholes who exploit the system..

No need to call people names, polite discussion can be had.

dagnabit, I'll call you "Shadowstalker16" if I want too. :P