but the journalists would harp on about it

I mean, I back then was real liberal (the real kind) when it came to what can go into games.

Still am actually, not implying I am not that now

i understand you, but sadly the word "liberal"is just tainted now into being a crazy person

Well, we got rape sims, a columbine sim, and even a mass shooting sim. Still was okay with all of them.

So no reason for me to not tolerate Gone Home. I just, didnt like the journalism around it

and the reason journalists harp on about it is because they need media shock

they can't break the news because of twitter tweets etc beating them to it, meaning they can't be the "first to report"

hence they have to draw an audience from somewhere else, which is by actually creating the news by making problems where there are none

then getting that bullshit pointed out, and whining about being harassed for "reporting the news"

Well, problem is that journalism around games is basically obsolete.

We got actual gamers submitting entire playthroughs

Speedrunners.

look at Jim Acosta with trump, he's being rude, interrupts anyone else, won't listen and only makes bait questions, and when trump tells him to F-off, he reports on CNN "boohoo, president is mean to me and censors journalism"

and yes

Hell, the industry had to make embargos to make sure journalists could get their articles out

lets-players took over games journalism

Like Id imagine we wouldnt need game journalism if there were no embargos.

because then you can see the game to its fullest, not just a 5 minute "what we want you to see" bit like No-content Sky

So to play devils advocate

What reason does the game industry have to keep them around?

Mostly indies I reckon

and on top of that, "games journalists" now aren't even gamers, most even tweet about how they hate gaming

And then they have to review a game like that Cup-head fiasco, where they couldn't even beat the tutorial and then write an article about "This game is the new dark souls"

Oh, yeah... How they are all too similar when it comes to writing

Indies don't need games journalists, because they demand money for actual coverage unless they "want" to cover it, which means the game needs publicity beforehand, which if it got pre-existant publicity would mean it doesnn't need the journalists spreading it

Well, that actually makes sense.

Also, helps that I find most of my games through steam reccomendations

And well.. User reviews

yes

steam is a better marketing tool now anyway

cuz the actual gamers that buy stuff have spat out any journalism cuz of gamergate

so all games journalists will generate nowadays on games tehy cover is hate from a mob of people taht arent even customers

Hmm, I guess they are benefiting from the hate.

Makes more sense that way.

well it depends

if it the journalists only cover the game its bad

if they go "look at this hated game" people will respond by buying it out of protest

Well, makes sense with clickbait actually

yes

You want clicks

"OK guys, well... this gun is cool looking, and it's black, and it fires bullets, so.... it functions. I mean, I hate guns, but I can imagine someone liking this for it's.... power....?"

They still are loosing money last I heard

anyhoo, gotta fly, gonna play heroes of the storm with some friends, i'll be around later

Cya then

It just makes no sense for games journalists to not be gamers.

Well I can say they hate black guns

if they wanted money, they should've gotten loyal audiences instead of spit on anyone that doesn't follow the progressive narrative

Nobody pays for news anymore however

I pay Tim to do that

Just need to replace press conferences with Twitter AMAs

Then maybe there'd be a lot less bullshit

Beautiful B-roll shots today, Tim. Also, the Text overlays are great.

Why do I get the feeling that "What you're saying is" is going to become a longer standing meme?

Also, how long before someone claims that saying "What you're saying is" as a means to take a dig at the left is a form of hate speech?

All I know is 'what you're saying is' is usually followed up by a strawman of what you were actually saying, at least from my experiences with it.

Aye, but since Kathy Newman used it so extensively, I've noticed people starting to use it satirically, like Tim does in today's video

on a related note, I'm wondering if there's any way to persuade Kathy to watch Cassie Jaye's TED Talk - in it Cassie talks about how she used to do the same thing back when she was of a feminist mindset

And to get her to see her "The Red Pill" documentary.

I'm wondering if it could be a good way to prod people into listening to what they're actually being told rather than what they think they're being told

I still need to watch the Red Pill myself, so not sure if Cassie actually explains how she used to think when she started the project

She does. Admittedly, she does spend more time on the MRA's point of view more than feminists, but she does both justice pretty alright. There was one part in there, however, where I am not ashamed to admit that I cried.

Where they were talking about boko haram.

Boko Haram is the islamist group that is against girls being educated if I'm remembering right?

Yeah.

All you heard about them was that they stop girls from getting an education, and kidnapped them that one time, right?

What you don't hear about is what they do to the boys.
They light them on fire.

aye, they don't report that on the news

And that they were killing the boys for months, and often the reports would use terms such as "people" or "villagers", even though they were mostly men, but since there was *one* woman in the group, they used the term "people."

And that that they only got the attention they did from the world once the kidnapped those girls.

Killing men and boys for months, even years, in unimaginable ways such as lighting them on fire.
Yet when they kidnap some girls, the world freaked out.
"#BringBackOurGirls"

This was an important lesson for them, obviously. "Just stick to brutally killing men. Noone cares about the men."

"They light them on fire."

Oh.

This got dark, didn't it? lol

I mean, hey, the darker parts of Islamist groups need to be showcased. Not enough light is being shed on it, because people are afraid of offending Muslims. If only they'd get on board with Muslim reformation, and see the current religion as it truly is. So many people are a prisoner of that faith, afraid to speak out, or run from their oppressors. That and pile onto that the fact many people have only known Islam. So when you have the atrocities on one hand, and basically all you've ever known on another, things tend to become muddled. Whereas, in other peoples' cases, they've been on the outside, looking in, seeing the problems rising from Islamic extremism.

The media is, in a sense, making peoples' chances of escape from actual maniacs that much harder by refusing to attribute the radical Islamist tag on pretty much any act of terrorism. And then there's the reality of them straight-up ignoring some attacks. A lot of attacks, actually. I have to actually look up the terrorist attacks in Europe. You'd think something like that would be top news. People are dying, and yet still, so many are willing to turn a blind eye. The literally only thing that they are accomplishing is further entrenching good people within their own prison. The prison that they, in the majority of cases, were born into.

And it's giving really shitty people free reign. It somewhat reminds me of the recruitment process of _actual_ white nationalists. Not this _blanket statement_ made up by many left-leaning individuals, who use it to discredit and defame their ideological and opinionated opponents. Basically, stories have been going around where (actual) white nationalists and skinheads have been recruiting kids and others at a young age who have been discarded by society. And what becomes of this is a sort of _"what if" situation. What _if_ these kids hadn't been manipulated and warped into someone else's twisted image at such a young age? Would they have been good people if they hadn't been thrown away so easily?

That's why I'm for Islamic reformation. _Technically,_ it makes little to no sense in one regard. Faith is about believing in something blindly, not changing what you have faith in. So it's kind of stupid on that front. Otherwise, why did you ever have faith to begin with if you were just going to change it? But on another more important side of things, Islam isn't going to go away. So the best chance the world has to step in the right direction is Islamic reformation, where the Qu'ran is revisted and revised to better fit a more peaceful and less barbaric way of life.

>wall of text
>rambling

Oh. My bad.

Let’s just say if Islam is the religion of peace than I really don’t want to know what the religion of war is.

^

^

This is compounded by the fact that many, about half (probably more) of the incoming migrants and refugees are completely illiterate in their own language.

@CreativeRealms the argument is that they are peaceful when islam is supreme

I am Supreme.

I have to chuckle whenever I see a feminist supporting Islam as a whole while literally being willfully ignorant and blind to the many shortcomings it possesses. Like, you'd literally have to _actively_ avoid and purposefully forget, or not believe no matter what, details here and there that challenge your position.

Sounds like a full-time job imo

When people get obssesed with identity politics, it can lead to them having some pretty contradictory views.

It's why I don't really identify as anything politically wise.

Yeah, I never got around to figuring out what I even am

I guess I just saw it as a waste of time

I've only ever taken the political compass test, for the most part, and a couple of other online tests.

Taking the compass test two years in a row as put me in the exact same spot each time.

With a very minor shift.

ISideWith is the most accurate in my opinion.

I side with my ignorance

I don't like that one, actually.

It’s the only one that put me as republican.

Not only is it longer than I care for, but many of the questions either don't have an answer that I actually agree with, or are worded in such a way where I feel compelled to answer in one way or another without actually agreeing with that answer.

Political compass had me at extreme centrist.

In the end, whatever I am, I'd rather take a middle stance despite my beliefs, so as to create a platform upon which I can act as liason between the right and the left. To act as a voice of reason, and compromise. Fighting like this has really taken its toll, and anyone should be able to see what it's been doing to the current political sphere.

kek same. Almost dead center according to online political tests (because we all know those are super accurate)

I'd rather people in general just start working together

but

>naivety

Humans are pretty irrational beings a lot of the time

I have my right wing bias but I can understand why the left and extreme right think the way they do so it’s easy to debate them.