What effect will the Trump presidency have on existing Leftist organizations?

What effect will the Trump presidency have on existing Leftist organizations?

Could SAlt, PSL, the IWW, or even fucking CPUSA finally come to prominence?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_liberation_movement
reddit.com/r/MensLib/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Nope, they backed Clinton back when Sanders appeared to have a good chance of winning the Democratic Primaries.


As a Brit, I've considered joining them but wanted to ask if their UK branch uses funds to support the IWW worldwide as my membership would be redundant as I already have union protection under the union that my employer recognises.

They can't even bother to answer an email for my money, I'm not sure what they're capable of in America but it doesn't seem to be much going on here.

Tell me what you've done for leftism

CPUSA is actually on the incline. My hope that their split a couple years ago would kill the party was in vain.

What do you mean?

Here's a comprehensive assessment of the future of leftist organizations and the left in general. Enjoy.

Rated PG Parental Guidance

THIS SHITPOST HAS BEEN RATED T FOR TRIGGERING BY THE SHITPOST ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA FOR:

Gloating, memes, extreme length, age of consent related content, and greentext

inb4 PMSing mods delete/bumplock/stealth bumplock this thread even though it has more substantive analysis than 90% of the rest of this board put together
inb4 nice blog post
inb4 strawmanning and one-line handwaving dismissals from people who didn't read this
inb4 "wow this is so wrong I can't even say anything", because if you could refute anything here you would
inb4 OP is from Holla Forums
inb4 OP can't inb4

Now that the election is over, it's time to talk about something important. Watching America choose which type of cancer to kill itself with has been both informative and hilarious. However, there's one perspective on this election that hasn't been given a proper treatment, especially in relation to the wider geopolitical sphere, because the media doesn't allow this perspective the opportunity to speak. That perspective is the one from the steadily increasing number of people who support lowering the age of consent from the stratospherically high 18 (or 17, or even 16 depending on state) to something more closely reflective of biological fact and in keeping with personal freedom.

If you don't want to understand why the left hasn't been able to get its shit together in 100 years of trying, stop reading now.

Yes, you read that right - if you're still reading. It seems that much if not most of the left doesn't want to hear this, not only due to many of you somehow having been convinced that this is the one issue where you're allowed to be regressive idiots who make illogical, hysteria-driven judgments without having heard all the facts, but because admitting that you were wrong about anything would be a blow to your pride, having marketed yourselves as the political alignment for intellectuals.

cont.

For that reason, this diatribe and the responses to it will be enlightening even for non-leftists. But this isn't just about the age of consent. This is about demonstrating that the willful refusal of the American left in particular to understand this topic is a microcosm of the global left's larger failure.

So, where to begin? Since this is meant to be broader than most age of consent discussions, I think I'll start with my experience with said discussion and with seeing others discuss it coupled with a (relatively) brief explanation of why we have this opinion, so we can get most of the usual clutter out of the way first.

For some background, I came to Holla Forums as part of the first exodus in 2014, when GamerGate was still huge. I think anyone who was here at that time can agree that the quality of all boards was substantially higher then. In fact, it may be the highest-quality posting experience I've ever had on any site. I had numerous edifying conversations with knowledgeable, intelligent people with a wide array of views on a multiplicity of subjects. As Holla Forums got more popular and the Redditors, halfchanners and other normalfags started coming here, that sort of conversation was marginalized and thoughtless memery became the norm. Given that ephebophobia is the norm in America due to decades of propaganda, there was a corresponding increase in the number of posters here who hold this view, as well as a decrease in the proportion of people who know how to construct an argument. Having been an imageboard user for many years, I've seen this cycle repeat several times. The normalfags see a place full of smart people making original content, flood it in droves, scream at anyone who questions the status quo of this issue (or really, just anyone who disagrees with them about anything) to get out, and then wonder why nobody there is making good content anymore.

It's worth considering that maybe the people smart enough to make good content are also smart enough to see through the many layers of bullshit that the busybodies have piled up around this debate, but that's something to be pondered elsewhere. What's going to be pondered here is the fact that many on both sides of this issue have a piss-poor understanding of it, although the preponderance of them are in our opponents' camp. The most blatant example of this is the brigade of snarky, screeching feminist pseudointellectuals who post blithering sophistry in every thread this board has ever had about the age of consent, and more generally on every board on every topic ever, and whose overall behavior is arguably the single biggest cause of the rise of the far right and Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump. There are other important causes, of course, like the Obama administration's betrayal of the working class, but we'll cover those in more detail later. This portion of the discussion is about feminists, because the worst arguments I've heard against our position are invariably from them.

I've seen feminists tell someone in true John Oliver fashion that it is literally the current year when asked why nobody had a problem with an adult being with a teen until about 100 years ago. I've seen them shift the burden of proof and demand that we prove that no harm inherently comes from such a relationship, when proving a negative is impossible and the burden of proof is in fact on them to prove that harm does come out of it. I've seen them claim to post scientific papers proving their side and then retreat bawling when someone points out that whatever study they linked to is either unrelated or just completely wrong for a multitude of reasons. This is normally accompanied by posting numerous opposing studies such as the famous Rind study, which found reproducibility issues with the feminists' preferred studies and managed to get Bruce Rind and his team censured by the US Congress, a special occurrence that wasn't even rolled out for "racial realists" or climate change deniers. It's too bad that they never learn from being BTFO, because every time a new thread happens they're right back at it with the same stupid arguments that got utterly rekt earlier. I've seen them claim that any teenager online who thinks the age of consent should be lowered is in fact an adult posing as a teenager. This claim is in the same category as calling anyone who disagrees with you a paid shill in that it's unverifiable, but when has that ever stopped them? I've even seen them equate the power dynamics (a misused phrase if there ever was one) of an average 20-something guy in a relationship with a teenage girl to a feudal anarcho-capitalist overlord who can take away a citizen's water, electricity and internet service, which is easily the dumbest analogy ever. I want the reader to use the time from now until the beginning of the next paragraph to reflect on how stupendously asinine that is. Take a breather if you need to, because there's still a lot more to talk about.

Now that we've been through the opposition's points and why they're moronic dreck, how about some points in our favor? Honestly, this is one of the simplest parts of this whole thing, because this issue in and of itself just isn't as complicated as some people try to make it. If you think a teenager in 2016 can't consent to an activity for which all relevant information is easily available online (or even in 1916, when they had these antiquated things called libraries) when literal cavemen who lived in literal caves were able to understand it, you're either being disingenuous or you're less intellectually capable than said cavemen. If you think that a teenager can't consent to the one thing that they're biologically programmed to want more than anything else just because they're under a certain age or the person they want to do it with is more than a certain number of years older than they are, you need to be examined for brain damage. What exactly can they consent to, if not that? Your line of reasoning is as follows.

Now apply that to other subjects and take it to its logical conclusion, and you begin to see how morally and intellectually bankrupt it is.

The most common response to this will doubtlessly be a legion of special pleading fallacies, but as any intellectually honest person can see, this pretext of psychological harm from adult/teen relationships that our opponents have concocted to invade others' personal lives has about as much factual basis as Bush's allegations of Iraqi WMDs had when he invaded Iraq. If a sex education course doesn't prepare you for sex with anyone who wants it, that's a problem with the course, not with the student. Some people have said that because people gain experience as they age, there is an insurmountable power gap between an adult and a teen, which is a non sequitur and ignores that power gaps can also exist between adults. As a rule the power gap is negligible within the same generation, and regardless of any power gap in any relationship, it's up to society to make up the difference. But there's something deeper we need to get at here. Some people's experiences are more illuminating and grant greater maturity than others. Let me repeat that, because it's the most important part of our argument:

The quality of a person's experiences is more important than the quantity of their experiences.

You can see this irrefutable fact in every other area of life, from academics to politics. You could see it on this site back when it was still at its peak. So why do so many supposedly rational people still believe otherwise in this one specific instance? The roots of this phenomenon, ironically enough, lie in their psychology - the same psychology that they sanctimoniously abuse in any discussion in that chiding, grating, paternalistic tone that couches the loaded language they deploy in order to restrict the rights of others and interfere in things they have no business interfering with. This is of course on those rare occasions when they even bother to try to make a coherent statement, as opposed to a flurry of pseudo-moralistic condemnation and character assassination.

Obviously, feminists aren't the only ones who make bad arguments against us. The LGBT community, minority racial groups and others traditionally considered to be progressive have their share of exaggerated, theatrical indignation whenever someone mentions us. That's why if the far rightists get their way and Trump actually does everything these groups are freaking out about on Twitter right now and starts sending blacks and gays to concentration camps which, if our friendly neighborhood stormfags are to be believed, totally didn't gas the Jews but should have, we're not going to have a whole lot of sympathy for them. The left, in America at least, has been just as eager to censor us as the right because they believe us to be a political liability. This may have been the case in the past for reasons which would make anyone with any intellectual integrity nauseous, but the situation is changing, partly due to demographics and easier access to information and partly due to a general feeling of disgust with the modern culture of censorship. This highlights one of the major problems with the left: the lack of cohesion on the left isn't something that exists because no one has bothered to create it, but due to the morass of different interests all scrambling over each other to be the first ones to sell all the rest down the river to improve their own situation. The posters here can say "agitate, educate, organize" all they want, but that won't erase the homophobic black people, the transphobic feminists, or the poor people who identify with Donald Trump's swagger and wish they were him.

Speaking of Trump, I said we'd talk about the election, so here it is. I've read the salty tweets and sampled the tears of Tumblr, and I assure you that no one is more satisfied at this than we are. Hillary Clinton richly deserved to lose for being a spectacularly corrupt candidate, for not addressing the real issues, for tying herself to Obama's tepid corporatist agenda, and because she said bad things about video games. The upcoming Trump administration, and even Obama's current lame duck session, offer many opportunities for the left to convert otherwise politically uninvolved people who became interested in politics because they wanted to run Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary Clinton, and the rift forming between liberals and socialists will provide a chance for socialists to establish their own brand. But will they actually be able to use those opportunities? Looking at the left's history, I doubt it. Ephebosexuals, otherwise known as the default sexual orientation of all humans, aren't the only ones the economic left has screwed over. This very board has shown me a number of intriguing facts about earlier attempts at socialism, such as the Marx-approved expulsion of Victoria Woodhull from the socialist movement for her involvement with anti-racist efforts, and Lenin's decriminalization of homosexuality followed by Stalin's subsequent recriminalization of it. Much of the left thought that those causes were political liabilities, as they do with us today, and look where we are now. Even MLK's socialist leanings couldn't resonate enough in the present era to keep the majority of the black population from voting for Clinton in the Democratic primaries. These are legitimate causes, not made-up SJW upper class white women problems. They ended up succeeding largely independently of support from socialists, and it seems that if we want to regain sovereignty over our own bodies, that's what we'll have to do as well. And why not?

Really, this isn't a left versus right issue. Some on the left are with us, but I've browsed boards with majorities of nearly every political faction and there are a fair few right wingers with us as well. Ultimately, we'll go with whoever will give us the best chance of winning. So why, then, would I post this on a left-leaning board? Well, first of all, because I know the board has acquired some Redditors and I enjoy triggering them, not that they have the attention span to read this. But second, and much more importantly, because a Donald Trump presidency is the mainstream left's just reward for being massive fucking hypocrites toward us. When I come here and get the same exceedingly low quality of discourse you'd find on Holla Forums, it's galling because the left styles themselves as being above that. When someone formulates a detailed list of reasons why Donald Trump will be a terrible president and one of his supporters responds with "hurf durf can't stump the Trump" or "thank you for correcting the record", it just rolls off my back because I don't expect anything better out of people who support a meme president. But when I talk to supposedly enlightened, educated people who lump me in with people who want to bang 5-year-olds, I'm fucking livid, and I have every right to be. We have every right to expect better from anyone who purports to hold themselves to a higher standard. This is without even taking into account things like liberals or the left refusing to admit that maybe there's a problem with Islam shooting up gay nightclubs and hanging gay people while spewing venom at Christianity for the exact same inclinations, and then wondering why gay people started showing up for Trump instead of their queen. But that's just more of those competing incentives right there. I don't know if it's possible to resolve this contradiction, but if it is, the first step to resolving it is admitting that it exists.

So what's the thrust of all this, you ask? Why would someone just go and post this wall of autism on the internet if it wasn't leading up to something? Well, it is leading up to something. That something is the real problem I promised I'd outline way back at the beginning of this. Like I said before, when we argue our position we usually aren't met with counterarguments. We're met with furious screeds haranguing us about how awful we supposedly are for even bringing the subject up. We're met with threats and personal attacks that don't address anything we say. In short, we're met with not-an-argument levels that shouldn't even be possible. When somebody says something like "hurf durf ephebophile is just a pedophile with a thesaurus", any desire we could have had to engage with them is instantly shattered, because whoever said it has just outed themselves as someone who fundamentally doesn't care what's true and what isn't. They don't use the same thought processes that reality-based thinkers use. They didn't reason themselves into this belief, and they aren't going to be reasoned out of it. Being part of a hate mob makes them feel righteous, allows them to enhance their social status, or both. The psychology of these people is the psychology of authoritarians throughout human history who've claimed that they were passing stifling laws or starting unprovoked wars because it was necessary to protect society. And unfortunately, they're not limited to one part of the political spectrum. They exist everywhere, and if anyone wants to build a society that doesn't totally suck shit, they can't be allowed to retain control.

The moral of the story is that views based entirely on feels must be done away with for the left to make progress. People who are objectively wrong need to be directly and unapologetically told that they're wrong and why they're wrong. You'll never be able to make a useful, productive movement out of people who don't understand that. Unfortunately, the problem with making logical, objective arguments is that most people don't respond to them. This above all else has to be changed. You can look at the example of MRAs versus feminists if you want evidence of that. For decades, MRAs made reasonable arguments about male suicide rates being higher, male criminals getting longer prison sentences than female criminals for the same crime, and other such things. Meanwhile, feminists made exclusively emotional arguments, got strong financial backing, won almost all the power, and got laws that favored them passed, including the all-important raising of the age of consent to artificially prop up the value of their worn-out, desecrated genitalia. But too much of the left thinks in the same way they do even without necessarily agreeing with all of their ideology. You know how I know that? Well, there are two reasons. One is that most of the posters who came here after about the first 6 months or so are just LARPers who aren't really serious about anything, and therefore not open to seriously questioning anything. That's why most of Holla Forums's projects have failed. In that vein, you can repost this on Bunkermag if you like. There's more content here than most of you have produced in your entire lives. Or don't, I don't really care. If you did, some whiny fuckstain would probably complain about it until either you took it down or your hosting was revoked, and then all the fucking retards here would blame us instead of the people who go around censoring every opinion they don't like. The other reason is the same reason I know what this site was like right after the first exodus.

When GamerGate happened, most leftists were falling all over each other to excoriate it based on the slanted, often baseless claims of the very media outlets whose credibility was being called into question. They didn't even try to give the other side a fair hearing. Similar events happened countless times in countless places, and the result is what you see today - waves of angry, alienated young men being driven into the arms of Donald Trump. Of course, when Bernie Sanders announced his presidential run and the mainstream media started labeling his supporters as sexist Berniebros, suddenly those of them who had previously condemned GamerGate were confused. They couldn't understand how the media was so corrupt and unfair. If only someone had told them about it. Then again, maybe they would have seen the truth if they'd bothered to look for it, instead of just being a bunch of virtue signaling twats sounding off with the opinion they think they're supposed to have.

You know, like you're doing now.

tl;dr Yes, I do expect you to read all this shit. Don't call it a grave. It's the future you chose.

Thwarted by word filters. Oh well, at least I got a sweet set of dubs.

Actually this was meant to be its own thread but I'm kinda drunk so I decided it would be fun to post it elsewhere. And what do you know, somebody else made a thread about this.

fml tbh fam

IWW is pretty based still.

Which ones are those?

I agree with you, and came to the same conclusion long ago that the age of consent should be based on biology rather than an arbitrary number. But like you said, anytime you try to venture into this discussion with someone you are likely just going to be called a pedophile, or some variant of the "children can't consent" meme. It bewilders me how most cannot see the juxtaposition of considering a 17 year old a child and an 18 year old an adult. It just seems like an argument that is lost on your average person. I get the same kind of reactions when I try to bring up the idea that criminalized nudity and other forms of sexual repression do nothing to curb sexual deviancy, but instead are probably largely to blame for it. They are unconscious of their own biases making them completely unable to step out of them to look at something logically.

Holla Forums, mostly. You'd be surprised by how many people there agree with the jist of this. It's pretty funny to watch white nationalists who want the AOC lowered because they're worried about white birth rates and the handful of libertarians still on Holla Forums argue with the neocons.

"You're a kike shill!"
"No YOU'RE a kike shill!"
"You're a cuck!"
"NO YOU'RE A CUCK!"


I just read everything I just typed again and it reads pretty much like what happened, which is that when I started writing it I was sober, and became progressively more sloshed as it went on.

These people adhere to this shit like a fucking religion. They picked a number out of thin air and proceeded to defend it with the kind of psychotic zealotry you'd expect out of an ISIS fighter. The psychological need that zealotry fills is why you see people declare that whatever identity they hold dear, like white pride or black pride or whatever is more important than economic class. It's also why I drink.

IWW, SAlt members and whoever else, just go ahead and talk about whatever it is that you'd normally talk about, but think about this while you're at it. There are too damn many people on the left and in general who just don't fucking listen to reason.

Ugh, now I have to actually work.

...

Ex-GG here.

GG was pure right wing cancer and had not a single real issue. It was a thinly veiled attempt to run out anybody who did critical analysis of videogames as a medium and artform. That is all. Notice how GG exclusively targeted cultural critics and "indie developers". This is because GG targeted the left and tried to purge us from the gaming sphere.

Why was I GG then? Because I agree the industry is a piece of shit and I had the misguided notion that GG gave a single fuck about the state of the industry, but they didn't and don't.


Lol as someone who worked with Beyond Blue (male mental health org). Get fucked. MRA's are pure toxic cancer and feminists have done more for male issues than MRA's toxic masculinity fetishism ever has.

MRAs do not care about male issues. they literally have zero gender theory. Its a thinly veiled shield they use to bash feminists.

xD epic

You can fuck off back to tumblr at any time idpol.

No. Because:

Notice how those "cultural critics" had nothing of substance to say, and merely exploited video games to farm outrage. Notice how those indie developers were literally buying prestige (and thus sales) at rigged award ceremonies. Notice how those "leftists" were led by literal bourgeoisie.

Holla Forums is/was not all of GG. They do have the loudest shitposters though, and tried to use GG to spread their meme-tier ideology.

You guys I think I may be a psychic because I get a very strong sense that there's a pattern here.

Name something, then.

top zuz

There are cynical assholes using the MRM to push an agenda, but by and large MRAs do care about men's issues. As for gender theory, they have some but are more focused on reformism (misguidedly in my opinion). MGTOWs and PUAs (in case you lump them in with MRAs) have a ridiculous amount of gender theory though, and it varies between surprisingly insightful and hilariously stupid.

I followed it from the beginning and it did, in fact. Collusion to promote terrible games, the gaming media in thrall to corporate money, identitarian concerns over anything to do with gaming, etc.

Much of the "analysis" veered between identity politics, pretentiousness, idiocy, or some combination. People were pissed off mainly at the first type of "analysis," though, because it wasn't simply awful but also attacked many of them personally. Running out the current batch of gaming journalists would have only been a good thing.

The concept of "toxic masculinity" is right-wing idealistic garbage which "problematizes" masculinity at the expense of material reality, rejecting analysis of what actually causes people to cling to "masculine" conceptions in the first place. And, regardless, modern feminists have done absolutely nothing for men (though neither have MRAs for that matter).

no they wont as they lack a revolutionary leadership or faction even

To be fair, the MRM have given some men a sense of solidarity, and the material and ideological conditions they're fighting are pretty close to insurmountable. Most of men's problems arise from a dismissal of men's wellbeing (ideology) based on society's (material) need for cannon fodder.

Yes they did. I quite enjoyed for example errant signals analysis of eurocentrism in GSG that sent GG into meltdown.


No they weren't.


Yeah man, poor INDIE game developers. Get fucked.


The IRC chat log shows GG literally was started to attack the left and feminists.


Yeah, you're a dumb as fuck brocalist 12 year old that has only discovered socialism after visiting here from Holla Forums.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_liberation_movement

reddit.com/r/MensLib/


Yeah man, because telling men to suck it up is so healthy.


No they literally don't. All MRA forums are 99.9% bitching about women and feminists.


Incoherent ramblings that go against all mainstream academic social science and psychology isn't "theory".

That's feminist gender 'theory', idpol. You're all a bunch of pseudosceince nonsense practitioners to anyone who actually knows shit about human psychology.

No it didn't. It was started to chase the left out of the gaming sphere under the guise of corruption. If anything GG completely derailed Holla Forumss anti-EA campaign which was having serious industry repercussions.

GG was a golden goose for big developers.


No it didn't. People just can't seperate personal identity from criticism of things they like, especially super spooked "gamers" who's entire persona is built around brand loyalty.


They targeted exclusively cultural critics. Sites like Gamespot and IGN were completely ignored by GG.


Except y'know work with organizations like Beyond Blue to get help to men in rural areas. open gender dialogue. Gay rights. Fight and win fathers rights reform in the UK.

Academia and Neuroscience vs Holla Forums feels and rape apologists hmmmmmmmm choice.

Errant Signal is a run-of-the-mill liberal with aspirations to join the clique (or he was last I heard from him). You picked the most peripheral example you thought you could get away with instead of committing and going with someone solidly within the group like Sarkeesian.

Yeah ok.

You are putting a self-applied label above the material. The people you are defending are trust fund kiddies who bogarted the indie community. You ain't no leftist, nigga.

Fucking lord. I guess you've outed yourself of not actually following GG at any point. The IRC was just a bunch of attention whores who were leeching off of GG to try and make a name for themselves (like e-celebs but more pathetic)

Protip: I'm a NEET and for the first few months of GG I was reading, composing and posting to the threads at almost every waking moment. During that period the percentage of GG posts on imageboards that were made by me was easily in the double digits. That's who you're arguing against.

This is a brocialist board, m80.

I became a socialist years ago (without reading any leftist lit). I only realized that my opinions = socialism once I started looking into leftism more recently.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_liberation_movement
>reddit.com/r/MensLib/
Those are (tiny) movements, not accomplishments. Give an accomplishment of feminism for men.

There's a culture within the MRM of calling out that behavior.
Hyperbole aside, those are not mutually exclusive.

Welp better throw out the overwhelming majority of philosophy and political/economic theory then!

You are very bad at pretending not to be a retarded idpoler.

They tried to blacklist that one guy, and they have been publicly shaming specific people since forever.

Because those sites didn't publish the "Gamers are dead" articles nor were they outrageists. They were outside of the clique that made up the main target. Do you understand the concept of picking your battles? If you were a leftist, I would not want you making strategic choices come revolution.

"male tears"
feminism only took credit for this
>Fight and win against fathers rights reform in the UK
ftfy

Shouting rape at people is not an empirical format user.

I'm sorry you don't understand how falsifiability works.

Unfalsifiable claims are the most scientifically valid, amirite? They'll never be disproved! Shit, maybe that's why calling people rapists and rape apologists is so popular… Rape (especially the feminist definition) is pretty much unfalsifiable.

No, it wasn't. You clearly weren't there when it originally formed and was being banned from nearly every board on 4chan (except Holla Forums, which is why it did acquire so many followers on the right). The bizarre bans were what provided so much of the energy for Gamergate originally. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Not really, no. Mainstream developers were also criticized for capitulating to identity politics and SJWs. Gamergate had few allies, mainstream or otherwise.

The "cultural critics" they targeted were members of the identitarian "left" anyway, liberals rather than socialists. And they didn't even focus exclusively on cultural critics. You're lying or ignorant of something you said you used to follow.

IGN was attacked and altered some of its policies. Gamespot was also attacked, although the ire was focused, at the start, on mainstream gaming journalism sites (mainly Kotaku), certain journalists (especially after the "Gamers are dead" articles), and certain indie developers.

You dishonestly framed your statement to omit Kotaku when you should know, assuming you paid any attention to Gamergate at all, that it was one of the principal targets of early efforts to attack gaming media.

Nebulous and disputable.

Had almost nothing to do with feminism and much more to do with the gay rights movement. It's perverse for feminism to claim victory here when they were frequently divided (until fairly recently) over the status of gay men.

Judging by the rest of your points, I doubt it, but I don't know enough to say. In the US, though, they've often been opposed to more equitable divisions of child custody in courts.

There is no one more guilt of a kind of "centrism" than A-GGs overtly *Ameri*centric" "social justice" that they apply to European and Japanese devs.

You're right. Those awards were not bought, they were just rigged by the organizers who are part of a closely knit social clique that involves the indie developers who won.

They are all children of liberal bourgeoisie who moved to the most expensive city in America to LARP as the downtroden, struggling and oppressed.

Don't forget how they barge in on MRM meetings to pull fire alarms and shit. Also, I'm sure that Earl Silverman killed himself because he was just too full of toxic masculinity.

Did I misremember that? I thought there was money going from the winners to indiecade, in the form of donations. Your point is more relevant, tbh though.

Komm halt die Fresse. This is about as subtle as:
Of course you will get replies, but this is leftypol, it doesn't mean you know how to do good b8.

The problem with this kind of thing is that there are people on this board who are not familiar with [topic] and one post with a paragraph or two could influence them to have an opinion. Then those people regurgitate the opinion and others assimilate it as well. It's necessary to BTFO whenever possible to keep newcomrades from being led astray.

Jesus christ you're cancer. If you're going to make autismwalls write them out and read them before hand

CPUSA is literally a bunch of undercover FBI agents who don't know that everybody else in the party are undercover FBI agents.

Still standing up to your reputation, muke.

Ephebo poster here.

I know this board well enough to know that it can't help but take any bait offered to it. This thread offers an explicit demonstration of the pitfalls involved in getting an organization to work as a united front. A single firecracker can ignite a powder keg that makes or breaks organizational cohesion. You have to be able to plan for this stuff, since you'll have different groups all jockeying for influence, with different skillsets and psychological needs that may prevent them from being able to work together.


Yes. See the last part.


I saw GG's events unfold from nearly the beginning, and your statements make me think you're lying about having been in it.


This is utter crap. Haven't you ever read a lore thread on Holla Forums? There's better critical analysis in one of those than in a dozen academic papers on the subject. Also, GG did NOT exclusively target cultural critics. It targeted people like Patricia Hernandez, Ben Kuchera, Leigh Alexander, and other journalists who were shown to have had conflicts of interests with giving various indie developers inappropriate preferential coverage due to extensively documented personal or financial involvement with them. It's true that Holla Forums tried to use GG as a vehicle to spread right-wing views…and guess what? People like you are the reason for their success. But without GG, Holla Forums wouldn't exist either. Its struggle against corporate media brought class awareness to many gamers.


You're not endearing feminism to anyone here. Feminism deserves to be bashed. Or didn't you read my post earlier?


This may actually be bigger bait than what I posted. Congratulations.


You mean poor indie game developers like Brianna Wu, who got a $100,000 loan from her parents to develop games? Or how about Zoe Quinn's boyfriend, Alex Lifschitz, the son of a millionaire?


I'd be interested to hear any sort of specifics as to how this supposedly happened. Unlike your ilk, I'm willing to allow you to explain your position. But given your reticence to provide specifics on this (or anything else) in the past, I'm not holding my breath.

The point is reached at the end. The feels over reals culture has to be expunged from the left and from society in general before the left can make any progress. It's the ultimate cause of the identitarian divisions plaguing the attempts to form a class-based left. Just look at the tumblrcunt in here spewing a bunch of bullshit as soon as GG gets mentioned. It doesn't matter to her that it's all been proven false a thousand times over. All that matters to her is that GG hurt her feefees.

Wow, I was expecting the tumblrina to come back and throw another tirade by now. Guess she's all tired out from bawwwwwwing about Trump's win.

At any rate, there isn't actually too much to say about the groups in the OP. A Republican-controlled government will likely pass a lot of laws hindering socialists' ability to legally organize, regardless of whatever popularity they may gain from the general public realizing that the Democrats not only fucked them out of their pro-working class candidate, but also never did all that much to help the minorities whose plight they trumpeted as the reason we all had to vote for Clinton or else. Socialist organizations will have to adapt to this fact and it's difficult to say what form such legislation will take at this stage, but it's going to crack down as hard as they think they can get away with. Some of these groups may be banned through means like the TPP. Others may be subverted. Still others will fall victim to sectarian infighting and destroy themselves. The only hope is to train people to recognize each of these cases, and that requires people who are educated enough to understand how politicking works. If anything, getting people into state and local governments may be the salvation for leftist groups. Beyond that, we'll just have to wait and see.

You aren't worth the effort.

Concession accepted on all points. Your tears are delicious.

tl;dr

Damn, you read even less than Muke. Must be painful for you to run into people who actually know things. I don't know how you deal with it.