Temple of Kraden News:
| Greetings, heathen. Perhaps some fortuitous blessing of Kraden's grace hath led you to our humble Temple, or perhaps you are simply curious about this strange and wonderful cult. Should you be willing - and dare to hope - to achieve enlightenment, the door opens before you. Lo! Leave your old life behind! For once you step through, you become something more than just yourself. You become a Kradenette. Are you willing to make the rapturous plunge? Do you have what it takes? One of us! One of us! One of us! Already one of us? Make your presence known: |
| SSB: Women, Men, & Gaming; I will make the topic | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2014, 09:34 AM (14,623 Views) | |
| Kula Diamond | Oct 28 2014, 06:23 PM Post #141 |
![]()
atlus tracts
![]()
|
i normally don't post in these serious topics but i have to agree with ryu here |
![]() |
|
| UltaFlame | Oct 28 2014, 06:38 PM Post #142 |
![]()
Thanks Poui.
![]()
|
Posting to put forth support for the "Both sides of this argument are unsettling" viewpoint. (Thanks Ryu and Boyd for putting thoughts down.) |
![]() |
|
| Saturos | Oct 28 2014, 07:12 PM Post #143 |
![]()
heart-under-blade
![]()
|
From the other side, Ryu, I might see it if the harassment was being discussed and suddenly a group wanted to talk about something else. From the other perspective, I think it appears to dismiss the concerns of harassment, whether from acknowledging or investigating them. Part of that is a side-effect of limited spaces for discussion, but there's nothing that says you can't condemn and investigate the threats along with also talking about how the identity of the gamer is under attack. Like Nell was saying, a lot of the time they're the same thing: the people who are making those threats are trying to control the identity of the gamer and shape it to what they want it to be. And I don't think anyone wants that. For me, supporting Sarkeesian and Quinn and feminism and supporting gamers goes hand-in-hand. 48% of the gaming population is female, remember. Asking for equal treatment and consideration in terms of how they're represented shouldn't be too much to ask, right? And even if the populations weren't comparable, there's still a role for feminism there. Feminism isn't only for or addressed to women, it's also addressed to men. So a male-dominated field is exactly where feminism should investigate why there's an imbalance, and vice versa. Here, we have the demographics becoming more and more equal, and progress in the games to be sure, but more evolution to be done. And some people have a problem with that, as if every game will suddenly become some kind of matriarchal utopia.
I've never met a feminist in real life who thinks women should be superior to men. The overwhelming majority of feminist writing is for equality, not that women should be superior to men (I can think of one early 20th century writer who wrote a feminist utopia novel). In feminism, it's largely gone by the wayside along with essentialism (that women and men are radically different) about 50 years ago with second-wave feminism. The notion of "women are better than men" is usually a misunderstanding of what feminism is, and it tends to help the anti-feminist argument more than anything. There are those kinds of people, and lately they've been festering thanks to the anonymity of sites like Tumblr, so you're seeing more visibility of the extreme. Same happens on Reddit and 4chan. What witchhunts are you thinking of? Coming out of Tumblr, or out of feminism in general? What are you considering a witch hunt? EDIT: As a tangent, using "witch-hunt" to describe how feminists are allegedly targeting people might be a little ironic, considering the witch-hunt targeted women exclusively and resulted in the deaths of hundreds. >_> <_< EDIT 2: Also! Sorry, but what concerns were you thinking of? I got so caught up thinking about the situation that I forgot to ask. You can bullet point it if that's easier, or a paragraph. Whatever you want. EDIT 3: Lel, writing posts at work means I leave out a bunch of stuff, evidently. Ryu, if it was only one post that you thought was making an undue comparison, why did you say this topic was full of calling gamergaters evil? Also, could you talk to some of Nell's points as well? I feel like I'm retreading ground she covered already here. <_< |
![]() |
|
| Nell | Oct 28 2014, 08:26 PM Post #144 |
|
The Pretender
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"I have been afraid to enter this discussion because I feel you will write me off as a misogynist" "Show me the basis for this fear" ??? "I have been afraid to enter this discussion because it's just been people pointing their fingers at GamerGate as being evil, and it is not easy for me to offer a different opinion in that environment" "Show me the part(s) where it's all been about GamerGate being evil" ??? I'll leave those questions, and alongside with all the other stuff that I've raised and has not yet been addressed, for anyone who is of that view (and there seem to be a few of you now who have expressed that you are) and wants to substantiate those original points. I agree that people on 'both sides' have done bad things and that it would be great of they stopped (insofar as it would be great if everyone doing bad things stopped doing them), but I disagree with the idea that everyone should just shut up, which is just asking for people to be silenced, and I think it's actually really important for people to be able to talk about things that have happened to them - harassment being the obvious pertinent issue, but other things, too, like whether game developers paying bloggers to only make positive content about their games is a thing that should be happening or not. On that note, seeing as there are cries of "you guys are just labelling them without considering whether the concerns being raised have any merit", maybe it's time to go back to basics and actually try to define, as much as we can, what the two 'sides' of the issue are, what the conflict is and what birthed it, because I think a big part of the problem has been the handwaving of issues behind other issues behind other issues, and while I've had a fair opportunity to discover for myself what I think the heart of the matter is, there is definitely a lot of flotsam to wade through to get there. And given the rate of engagement with my other posts, I get the impression it shouldn't be me starting it, and it would be more useful coming from someone who thinks they can see the merit in that 'other side', so any volunteers? |
![]() |
|
| DJ Octavio | Oct 28 2014, 08:26 PM Post #145 |
![]()
Check out my spicy wasabi beats
![]()
|
I am at work as well, hence the somewhat incoherant responses. It started with the general hostility towards anyone who tried to open up a different opinion on the matter. Ian was trying to explain what he has been doing with his server that he has control of, and tried to explain that the hateful attitude was being spread to everyone, and he was shouted down saying "But women are targets of misogynistic behavior, and that's wrong" even though he was practically agreeing with your stance. That was my original "Do not post here" flag. Then, I see posts like these: Crash: So is anyone here still under the impression that Gamergate is anything more than a campaign of hate against women and other gender, racial, and sexual minorities, operating under the occasional guise of being about "game journalism ethics"? Jenna: Its not unreasonable to compare gamergate to the kkk at this point. And, from how I had been viewing the entire thing, this seemed like a wide brush accusation of everyone who was using that banner, regardless of whether they personally had done anything. Yes, I will openly acknowledge anyone who threatened to doxx or kill anyone else, but there were people in the movement who had legitimate concerns that were shouted down as well by those claiming they were in it for social "justice." Also, I have dealt with feminists who are out there for women superiority, there are some in my family, and talking with them at all on these issues is terrible. It's due to that reason that I do not want to even touch the feminism issues, so forgive me if I don't even want to deal with that. To try to address Nell's points, though. 1: What would you suggest, then, for those who support the "good" parts of what gamergate stands for to do? Any group that is created at this point will instantly get branded as an offshoot of #gg and get lumped right back in. I don't support the misogynist, doxxing, threatening aspects of #gg, but I also don't stand for the SJW side either. Where does that put me? I don't feel like starting a movement myself, because I want to just be left alone with the identity that I have chosen for myself, which is "gamer." 1.1: That article, plus the one on Ars, plus the half dozen more that came out on the same day, all had a unified message: Gamers are dead. While the subject and the content of the articles may have varied, the overall look on that day was "people who associate with the term gamer associate with [insert evil here] and they should abandon that." Then, shortly after, moderators on these sites, plus admins on reddit and even 4chan, started banning people who disagreed with that stance. This is what I saw, looking in. I didn't agree with the message being said, and still don't. 2: As I stated earlier in this post, the general tone of the posts by Nell and Satty have been dismissive. I thought Ian made some very good points, but almost everything he said was ignored to continue the "gamers are misogynist" message that was being pushed. That kept me from posting as well, because I didn't want to get talked down to because I don't share the feminist viewpoint. I will admit, a lot of my dislike towards this post is shared by the general hostility in #gg threads spreading across the many sites I read (In fact, a new article on ArsTechnica today started up the fires again and they're at it again) so overall this entire thing has gotten to the point where it's just annoying. |
![]() |
|
| The Phantom Squee | Oct 28 2014, 08:51 PM Post #146 |
![]()
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"
![]()
|
I just want to point out here that most credible historians consider the claim that the witch hunts targeted women unsubstantiated. The gender disparity there was more a by-product of the classist nature of the hunts than anything else. Also, women made up a majority of not only the accused, but the accusers as well. |
![]() |
|
| Nell | Oct 28 2014, 08:58 PM Post #147 |
|
The Pretender
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ryu, I think I ninja'd you. I apologise if the discussion with Ian was off-putting to you. My position in that argument was, "Women get harassed in the gaming community particularly, in particular ways". My understanding was that Ian's position was, "But everyone gets harassed in the gaming community". My problem with this line of thinking is (and I feel like I said all this at the time) is that: being harassed based on an aspect of your identity over which you have no control is not the same thing as general harassment, and it's a different problem. I also think I said something about 'but X other group has problems' is a line that's often pulled out whenever people try to talk about the political treatment of Y minority group, in ways that are often not relevant to the discussion (as in, it doesn't actually go to the matter in question) and are merely a (subliminal or intentional) way of derailing the issue, and so I am wary of it. Please let me know if this still seems like a dismissal of his point - I can see how it might appear that way, in the same way that Ian's "yes, but" 'agreeing' with me could also be construed as dismissive, but I am also of the opinion that if something legitimately isn't relevant, then it should be pointed out to be so. Beyond "your posts were generally dismissive", without reference to any specific instances, I am not sure what else I can do to try to alleviate this issue. I also think it's worth noting that there's a difference between "[all] gamers are misogynistic" and "the gaming community is misogynistic", and it seems to me that there's some conflation between the two. Certainly, I don't feel like the former is an opinion I ever would have stated, being someone who considers herself on some level to be a gamer and who doesn't consider herself to be a misogynist ... but since I'm busy apologising for other stuff I may or may not have done, I'll apologise if this happened, too. Honestly, my reading of the "Gamers are Dead" thing seems to be wildly different to yours - my take, like Chris Kluwe et al, was that the article was trying to say, "the field of gaming and gamers has become so wide that that field no longer exists". And to me, that's a positive thing. And also, to me, the main backlash about that idea was the cultural appropriation thing, which is ridiculous. If we go with your reading: yeah, the media has always had a problem with how to represent the gaming community, and 'gamers' - even, and perhaps especially, the gaming press - but if you want to change that image, I think you (we?) have to earn it. And when there are people around who are even inadvertently doing things that reinforce the status quo - for instance, demanding that people stop viewing gamers like us as dickheads, while being an dickheads - then that job gets harder. If you're determined to stick with the ship - and there is no inherent reason why you or anyone else should, except through their own personal election - then I think you either need to accept that people are going to be staring at the glaring holes in the side, or be prepared to patch 'em up. And, finally, my longstanding point (and I don't think it's mine alone) has been "I can't see what the 'good' [legitimate] parts of gamergate are" (so, no I don't have any bright ideas as to what they should do with themselves). I'm not convinced there are or ever were any, except this push against left-wing politics/feminism/diversity in games, which I don't consider to be a good thing, though you might tenuously call it 'legitimate'. But in my above post, I have asked for people to try to identify what that 'side' stands for - I'm not even the first person in this thread to do so - and I'm open to the idea that there might be one. |
![]() |
|
| The Phantom Squee | Oct 28 2014, 09:13 PM Post #148 |
![]()
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"
![]()
|
Well, here's a piece of writing that I found insightful on that topic. Setting aside the ethics in journalism angle, this writer presents an alternative idea of what he/she (I'm legitimately not sure what their gender is) thinks of the movement. |
![]() |
|
| Saturos | Oct 28 2014, 09:19 PM Post #149 |
![]()
heart-under-blade
![]()
|
Ian and I were talking about two different things, but again, rip writing when you're all online, that's either "just woke up" or "at work" territory for me. But essentially, I thought Ian was missing my point, and saying stuff that didn't apply. Ian was focusing on assholes regardless of gender issues, and while I acknowledge that some people are assholes, I was talking about the extent to which gender was a factor. Ian was claiming it wasn't a factor, and had some considerable flaws in his reasoning and outright false information in his posts (like threats against Sarkeesian being traced back to her IP). Ian's stance on the effects was the same (they're bad), but we differed on the cause, and therefore, how to deal with it. Ian thought anonymity and "assholes in gaming, but not misogyny" was the main cause; we thought "accountability" and "misogyny," which I said co-habits with assholery. I think the conclusion we drew from that was that assholery and misogyny, racism, and homophobia frequently co-exist, but just because someone's an asshole, they can also be and frequently are a misogynist, a racist, and/or a homophobe. Where was he "shouted down"? You can link the posts if you like.
What are these legitimate concerns, just for clarity's sake? Just so we're on the same page.
I understand that you might have had a bad experience with feminism in the past (so has Ian, I believe). But at the same time, that shouldn't extend to telling people not to talk about feminism (as some people do by saying both sides should be quiet, as if you can sweep all gender problems under a rug).
Can you requote those good points that you thought Ian made, so you can then point out what you think was inadequately addressed? And there's a very important difference in language that you're pushing on us here. "There is misogyny in the gaming community" is far different from "Gamers are misogynist." I reskimmed the first page, and I saw mostly the former, not the latter. Former: Some gamers are misogynist. Latter: All gamers are misogynist. And Ian's theory was "There are too many assholes in the gaming community." Is that more palatable? What I'd add to Ian's post was "There are too many assholes in the gaming community, and too frequently they are also misogynistic." I don't think anyone's disputing that they're assholes, but also that misogyny is a crucial factor. As for your difficulty in choosing sides, I don't support #gamergate, and I don't support the SJW side either in terms of the counter-hackings and doxxings. I'm looking at this from a feminist perspective but also as a gamer, in ways that are consistent with my own ethics and my rational faculty (I hope). |
![]() |
|
| Nell | Oct 28 2014, 09:29 PM Post #150 |
|
The Pretender
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think it's an interesting theory, and certainly a lot of this would never have happened if everyone, including Quinn, who I've been seeing a few weird things from, though I am not sure whether they are substantiated or not, had had more so-called 'common sense', but I think it fails to address the fact that: if you think you've found a conflict of interest between a journalist and his or her subject, then your issue is necessarily with the journalist, not the subject. Going after the subject is a pretty big indication that it's not a rational dissection of journalistic discourse. Going after a female subject because of a way in which she may or may not have used her body to gain advantages is old-school sexism. The sexism pre-dates everything else. The writer also makes some interesting points about individual accountability, but I would have liked to have seen him or her address the issue of the huge power imbalance that comes with the idea of groups of people trying to hold one person accountable, and vice versa, especially on the internet. |
![]() |
|
| DJ Octavio | Oct 28 2014, 09:42 PM Post #151 |
![]()
Check out my spicy wasabi beats
![]()
|
What Squee just posted pretty much summarizes my thoughts and how I align with #gg, far better than I could put it. Edit: As for the "groups of people holding one accountable" part of what you said, that is almost exactly the problem with telling #gg to stop the threats. I, personally, do not know a single person who has sent a threat or doxxed anyone, so how am I supposed to get them to stop? Yet, by my inaction, I am aparently just as bad as the person who did it. That's what I'm against. |
![]() |
|
| Saturos | Oct 28 2014, 10:01 PM Post #152 |
![]()
heart-under-blade
![]()
|
Gender was a by-product of class in the witch hunts? That's interesting. I'd ask more about it, but that's off-topic. Appreciate the input, I might ask you about it on Skype. Yeah, that's an interesting article, Squee, and I would agree with some of its points raised. Though I wish they provided more context on the Kotaku bullying article, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. The article leans a bit more towards the Gamergate side, by not really looking at the threats issue much.
And quotes like this are kind of ridiculous and, as far as I know, unsubstantiated? I agree with what Nell said. I would also venture that while the individuals attacking Anita and Quinn might be targeting individuals, by looking at the big picture, if most of the people being targeted for lack of individual accountability are of a particular gender, or talking about a particular thing, I think gender is a factor.
Also, isn't targeting the news publication by definition targeting a group? Given how much of the anti-feminist, anti-SJW, anti-Tumblr, and anti-Kotaku rhetoric I see on Gamergate articles, websites, and so on (based on recommendations given to me by a pro-Gamergate), I'm not entirely convinced the entire movement is uniformly against individuals. The article writer themselves kind of commits this fallacy: the opposition to Gamergate is about groups, and the group of Gamergate is about individuals, as if it's that clearcut. EDIT: What Nell meant, Ryu, was that there was a huge group of people (#Gamergate) vs. 1 person (Zoe Quinn), and that's a fundamentally unequal power relationship. Ditto most of the other single journalists or developers who have been targeted. It's one person vs. #Gamergate. |
![]() |
|
| Nell | Oct 28 2014, 10:04 PM Post #153 |
|
The Pretender
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do what others are doing and make it clear, if not to that person, to others around you, in public or in private, that you think what they are doing is not okay? I don't think there's a clear line between holding others accountable for something vs being complicit to that same thing, but a lot of the time, it takes a really small amount of effort you put in to saying "Hey, dude, that's not okay" - turn off your inner circlejerk sensor if you have to. Obviously it's up to you to decide if it's an issue worth investing your political energy into, and nobody can invest in everything. A lot of people have dropped by this very thread and to quickly say, "Yeah, by the way, I agree". That's not that hard. That there has been a lot of condemnation of those who are silent, I think, is the opposite facet to all those people who keep saying they just want people to go away and be quiet so they can get back to their lives/games. Middle ground is needed - at least, in this case. In real life, because accountability is different, I think there is a stronger case for silence = complicity. |
![]() |
|
| The Phantom Squee | Oct 28 2014, 10:20 PM Post #154 |
![]()
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"
![]()
|
This is admittedly based only on my own personal experience, but virtually every figure I've seen attempt to act as a spokesperson for their side of the movement has fit these criteria. For instance, this interview, this, and the NotYourShield tag.
I can understand where you're coming from here. I think that a lot of that comes from the issue of it being, as stated, a rather nebulous and leaderless movement. Some people identifying as part of it don't feel the same way, and some of those people who don't feel the same way are writing articles, is my guess. Because there's no leader to officially say "By the way, we don't publicly endorse this stance," it's easy to take that as representative of the movement as a whole, intentionally or not. Alternately, maybe you're right! Maybe those particular article writers have simply lost sight of the principle of targeting individuals and are committing the same fallacy they claim to oppose. I think that to some degree that's inevitable in a movement like this, where some people will get sidetracked and others will join the movement because they see it as an opportunity to further their own unsavory goals. |
![]() |
|
| UltaFlame | Oct 28 2014, 10:30 PM Post #155 |
![]()
Thanks Poui.
![]()
|
See I don't want to post any thoughts or opinion in this because while I'm of the opinion that gamergate itself is really [radio edit]ing dumb, I also think that gamergate's opposition is dumb too - the entire thing is a cluster[radio edit] and no matter what side you go you can't feel comfortable for the rabid nature of the ordeal. The internet is just not a valid place to hold a discourse of this kind. And, yes, it's the anonymity involved. Anonymity absolves and abolishes accountability. Atleast accountability to anyone but yourself - and if nobody else holds you accountable, it's easy to not care. :U I mean I fear if I post here with the intent to continue or participate in the discourse I'll have to defend myself against both Nell and Satty while feeling like the assumption is that I sympathise with something I don't just because I'm daring to have an opinion that isn't aligning with the consensus. Both sides have the "With me or against me" philosophy that I find toxic in this whole issue and - yes, that insular feeling wil lead to the feelings everyone else is detailing, the feeling of being afraid to voice an opinion here. Because when one person voices an opinion both of you descend upon them and say "No, you're wrong and what you're saying is wrong and I don't understand why you don't see that" meanwhile crash and jenna are going around saying things like those things that have been quoted many times and neither of you called them out on it. Yes, you admit that it was stepping past a line, but that's after people mentioned that it was making them uncomfortable. And in my case at least, it's not what was said that makes it uncomfortable! It's the utterly no-dissention-allowed enviornment it puts out. [radio edit] it, this is like the tenth post I've started in this, Ima just keep what I have down. |
![]() |
|
| Saturos | Oct 28 2014, 10:32 PM Post #156 |
![]()
heart-under-blade
![]()
|
Yeah, I think being a leaderless movement is really to #Gamergate's detriment. Since, even though it might consist of a series of individuals (who still mobilize in groups), every part of the group presents the same public face: #Gamergate. If both groups are waving the gamergate flag, it's hard to dissociate them in a meaningful way beyond prefacing every statement with "the moderate part of Gamergate" or "the radical part of Gamergate," which makes them still, linguistically, a single movement or noun. It's necessarily to distinguish them explicitly, since they're so tied up in each other. |
![]() |
|
| Ian889 | Oct 28 2014, 11:12 PM Post #157 |
|
Death comes to all of those who oppose me.
![]()
|
Since my name has been thrown around a dozen times or so. For what it's worth I never felt shouted down, but I understand how those reading it could see it that way. I just grew bored of the conversation. No one was getting anywhere, and the discussion was no longer worth my time or effort that's the reason I stopped trying to proverbially bash my head against the wall. In the truest form of the Zen philosophy you just have to let it go at some point so I did. I didn't feel that it was forced upon me, and to be frank even if they would have outright called me a misogynist it wouldn't have mattered much because people will call you and label you whatever they want really. You can't change it, and more times than not you can't change what people think of you. It's best in reality to decided if the people who are calling you X are worth enough emotional investment to care about what they say. If they are hurting you in some meaningful way in regards to your job or things of that nature then it becomes a different story. That is however rarely the case. |
![]() |
|
| Saturos | Oct 29 2014, 12:39 AM Post #158 |
![]()
heart-under-blade
![]()
|
I don't see how we're silencing people when we've both asked multiple times for different people's opinions and what they feel are the things that matter to them, despite being ignored. Squee kindly took us up on that and posted something, which even though I have some problems with it, is a viewpoint I hadn't considered or encountered before. I don't agree with it, but I think it's a good contribution to the discourse. From my side of things, both Nell and I have reached out on multiple times for dissenting opinions or more information, and usually the answer is silence. As for Crash and Jenna, like Jenna said, I didn't think anyone was still reading it who cared. There weren't any reports, and no one objected beyond Peytral's sarcasm. The consequence of self-censoring is that no one hears you. So until people said it made them uncomfortable, it wasn't insulting any Kradenette (I can't think of anyone who's identified with #Gamergate even now - maybe Squee?) so I didn't think it applied. And there is basis for their posts, it was just taken too far. Dissension is allowed, but if you express dissent, you should naturally be prepared to explain why you disagree, and elaborate when parts of that are criticized. If you can't elaborate or explain it/can't defend it from criticism, maybe that's an opportunity to learn something. That's a part of learning, and this is a SSB thread. If it wasn't allowed, I'd be following the 4chan and Reddit model and just be banning people for disagreeing. That's what "no dissension allowed" looks like. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the positive effects of #Gamergate. Why do people feel it's worth supporting? That's not a rhetorical question. If it's about ethical journalism, how exactly is that being practiced or applied? If it's not about ethical journalism, what is it about? Or, is it even really about anything (starting to be my impression from the "leaderless movement" argument)? |
![]() |
|
| Nell | Oct 29 2014, 02:30 AM Post #159 |
|
The Pretender
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am perturbed by the idea that I/we are being told off because I/we neglected to fulfill a duty to speaking up about something, while at the same time, Ryu is protesting against having a duty to speak up about something forced upon him. |
![]() |
|
| Momentime | Oct 29 2014, 01:48 PM Post #160 |
|
uh oh
![]()
|
Holy shit dude do you not see the MULTI PAGE MASSIVE WALLS OF TEXT spread out over SEVERAL POSTS put forth by Ian, boyd, ryu, squee, etc.? All of them in response to satty and nell, both of which are encouraging expressing ur opinion. how many times have i read can u elaborate on this or that or can u say what u mean. and i only skim the posts because holy [radio edit] there's so much tl;dr yes, when u post here u will have to post ur opinion and defend it. its ur opinion so by nature it cannot be held to be right or wrong. what it can be held to is being misinformed, biased, or lacking enough informatino to make sound reasoning to back up ur opinion. so on and so forth. this is the nature of discussions such as these nad if u cant handle ti then why the [radio edit] are you even here. maybe if u were on reddit the upboat system makes the circlejerk no dissent environment would be so palpable it would be suffocating, but were not posting in that cesspool of retards, so speka ur mind or lurk. or dont, idgaf. what're they gonna do, ban u? i think satty and nell try way too hard but now i'm beginning to see how they would be annoyed because u guys consistently think this is reddit happy fairy land where u have to walk on eggshells and not step on toes because otherwise oh no my karma : (((( Edited by Momentime, Oct 29 2014, 01:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Games · Next Topic » |














![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





1:42 PM Jul 11






