"SteelSeries consider the campaign to have been so damaging to their brand they are currently in discussions about what action they take next as they believe the marketers "misrepresented" the level of SteelSeries involvement." - As per Richard Lewis on twitter.

Sounds like they might actually legally bully the Bully Hunters.

@>Cytos, de lieve goede synth http://archive.is/ZnVnM Interesting...

Apparently Bully Hunters, according to a tertiary source (Richard Lewis) citing a Secondary (Steel Series), was created by FCB Chicago, a marketing firm.

this seems like a fad with how quick it went from 0-100 back to 0.

It was a lame stunt that got the shit smacked out of it. It's in fallout stage now.

I'm looking at the Facebook page for some of the sponsors, I assure you it's not over on there.

https://youtu.be/jYren919axg

^the YouTube shooter

Found in her car by the police before the shooting

haha watching the police try use a phone....

Absolutely no red flags

stuff like not knowing new number, not immediately knowing where your ID is could be put down to sleep deprevation

Has WW3 started yet?

nah, just CW2

why is everyone exagerating?

syria is a small chip, why would WW3 start because of it?

Why would WW1 start because some dude got assassinated?

Syria was bombed before, this is not a big enough trigger

if WW3 didn't start in 2014, it won't start now from the same action

Too many alliances in one place so bad things can happen fast

_can_, yes

still improbable that it will though

Can’t I just shitpost about WW3?

there's been too many people not shitposting talking about WW3, I'm just wondering if they are doing it for views or if they actually believe it

It could start if enough disinformation about the cause and the aggressor is spread around.

if it's the latter, I'm interested in their reasoning

Tbh Alex Jones freak out was great

Typically, whoever 'starts' WW3 automatically loses by default, since the rest of the world would just dogpile onto them. What if we don't know *why* it started, though? What if we don't know how or who the aggressor was?

What if WW3 "just broke out", and there are too many mixed accounts to get an accurate read as to the cause?

Suddenly it becomes a lot more 'safer' to start such a conflict.

2 WWs isn't enough data to conclude that "whoever 'starts' WW3 automatically loses by default"

I wasn't talking about the previous two World Wars.

Besides, even if I was, what would it take then?

also, I don't think either the US or Russia want WW3 just because of a small country smaller than Texas to pass some pipes through

Two world-rending conflicts with hundreds of millions of deaths isn't enough data?

I didn't say anthing about Syria in specific being the cause. lol

that's what _we_ were talking about before you commented on it though

Alright.

Although wars have been started over more petty reasons, so you never know. lol

any war started is won by america by default these days