Sub-Cultural Imperialism, Racialized Politics, and The Left

I recently watched Zero Books' little video entitled "How the Global Left Can Counter Bannon and Peterson", one of the things that stood out to me was its offhand statement that while the right has used gaming to its advantage to attract some young people, there's no reason the left can't do the same–indeed they even claimed that such an undertaking would be superior than trying to mimic the collectivization of the 1920s.

Fast forward a bit. Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 was just announced. As a fan of the original game I was honestly excited for it, around that time several people who I assume are Zig Forumslacks began fretting about a statement made by the devs that the game would be "political" that it'd be taking a "political" stance. Soon enough people began sharing repeatedly some examples of White Wolf's newest writing, most infamous being the character of "Rudi" who was a trans black muslim swedish vampire fighting for the rights of humans and vampires everywhere.

Soon enough an upswell began to emerge on /v/ that amounted to a single statement "We don't want politics injected into our games." It appeared to be an echo of GamerGate resurfacing, though this time with notably more opposition from /v/, as many people began sharing dialogue from the original Bloodlines that relentlessly mocked Bush and The Republican Party, as well as pointing out the contradiction of posters who said "You can have a game about civil wars and the environment degrading or overthrowing the government without it being political." Others quickly asked how a game about a civil war or governments being overthrown WASN'T political.

There are two things I want to hone in on, firstly if we were to give these people who claim to be bloodlines fans the benefit of the doubt and assume they played the first one and object to politics in the second, why would they be okay with a few potential jokes about Bush but not Trump? Secondly, what does it mean to these people to "not inject politics in games" when they seem perfectly fine with the politics of civil wars and government coups?

I know some people on here might answer that it's because of some inherent "Right Wing Hypocrisy", but I would argue it's much more than that. If these people tolerated jokes about Bush then they must have made at least some transition in the years between the Bush and Trump presidency that pushed them to their current mindset, secondly I believe that by studying this we could perhaps win a few people back to the left, as well as prepare the ground to win back some young people.

In the case of tolerating Bush jokes, I have a theory that the transition many young, internet savvy Americans made from mocking Bush to loving Trump lies in the evolution of one phrase: "Old Rich Politicians"

Full disclosure, I considered myself far right for some time before finding this place and slowly transitioning back to the left. My move to the right came from initially being liberal and then growing disillusioned with American liberalism in the later years of the Obama presidency.

Firstly, let's look at the phrase "Old Rich Politicians", this and some variations of it was something I heard a lot during the Bush years: The Republican Party was simply the party of rich old guys, or just old rich politicians, boomers, and corporate slimeballs. The phrase is incredibly useful, especially for Americans: our culture values youth and so the "old" part implied these politicians were out of touch, they were an alien culture to us young people, so on. The rich aspect was self-explanatory, they were insulated from the problems they were causing for the rest of us. As for politicians, well what good American doesn't hate a politician?

Yet I've noticed over the years a few extra words added to that statement, which gradually subsumed the whole thing and filtered down to wider liberal culture: "Old Rich White Men"

You see, it's the last two words which change the context of the whole statement. The "White" and "Men" part stands next to the "old" term and gradually take equality or even supremacy with the rest of the words used in the statement. Suddenly "white" and "male" are on equal parts with "old" and "rich", the phrase is used with such bile as to imply that one's race and sex organs imply they're just as out of touch or oppressive or bad as their age and personal wealth. Suddenly, the Republican party went from merely being met with implications of racism to being met with an accusation that they were just the party for whites or for men.

1/3(?)

Attached: Rudi.jpg (290x174, 8.06K)

Other urls found in this thread:

spacecommune.com/10-insights-on-gamers-political-views-according-to-facebook-data/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I appreciate the effort post but I'm not sure what the end goal of this thread is meant to be, good luck though I guess, what your saying is interesting

Now, you might think that even with such an accusation, it can be argued that in contrast to the Republicans the left is for "everyone", yet I would say that's not how it comes across to many people. Instead politics itself has taken a racial characteristic: whereas the Republicans became the party "for" Whites, the democrats or even the left as a whole had become something "for" minorities. Suddenly if you were white, you're told you have a binary choice between either advancing your interests to the expense of others, or advancing others interests to the expense of your own.

Why then do White people outside of the rust belt so vigorously support Trump? Why did they rally to Kavanaugh? Why will they decry accepting any more migrants or syrian refugees while insisting that we take refugees from South Africa? It's because implicitly or explicitly, Politics has become a racial thing, it doesn't matter if their views and Kavanaugh's views are diametrically opposed, what matters is the ideas behind them. The Kavanaugh case especially put the statement "believe women" on trial, and some men sick and tired of what they saw as an unfair and prejudiced attitude privileging women and destroying white men's careers saw it as the best chance to issue a roar of "go fuck yourself".

It was the same with Trump. To quite a few people, especially white men, who were sick of "social justice" rhetoric, who felt demonized and alienated by it, it wasn't just incidental that they supported Trump and he made racist statements; it was absolutely imperative that he kept making controversy.

To persevere and fight and to battle for Trump's victory over Clinton was to spit on the very ideas which define so much of modern liberalism. It was to not just annoy them, but to stab a knife into their narrative of progress: the "inevitability" of a woman president was halted by a guy who talked about grabbing women by the pussy.

To these voters, Trump was a refutation of an entire world view they deeply despised. Going into actual policy, his desire to build a wall and get tougher on immigration fits neatly into their worldview, where politics is inherently racial and thus any advancement of their interests must come at the cost of others, lest the same happen to them.

Now that I explained why I think these people who previously may have laughed at Bush defend Trump, I want to talk a bit about what they may mean by "injecting politics" into games. The growth of the right in gaming–which I think was always a bit liberal leaning given the efforts of conservatives to censor it in the past–was facilitated mostly in the face of events like GamerGate, in fact the term "SJW" was pushed into the popular lexicon right around the time of that gaming controversy.

Yet the seeds were planted before that and only pierced the surface when controversy hit. Anita Sarkeesian was a much talked about figure beforehand, who attracted her own controversy when she raised a ton of money via kickstarter to do her feminist analysis of video games. For months there were comments and videos calling her a fraud, insisting she didn't even play video games, calling her a scam artist. Even some initial supporters of her were growing nervous at the time it took for her to make videos, to the point that several people insisted she just ran off with the money.

Here, conflict emerged, between a gaming press that said the treatment of Sarkeesian was clearly indicative of misogyny in the gaming community and actual members of the community who insisted that Sarkeesian was a fraud.

But why the insistence that she wasn't a "real" gamer? I believe that this is something of a perennial conflict in gaming and really nerd culture in general. Those who grew up bullied for their interests, or otherwise as outsiders, they formed something of an insular culture. Friendliness was entirely determined by whether you were actually part of the hobby group or not. Saying this as a guy who played Magic: The Gathering in highschool and was mocked pretty relentlessly for it, this suspicion of "outsiders" is built into most nerdy hobbies among members of the community.

To insist that someone wasn't a "real" gamer or "really" appreciated comics or "really" liked D&D, was to insist that they were much the same as those bullies they'd met in their life who would show interest in their hobbies only to mock them for it when they got close enough.

2/3

Attached: 1535034610481.png (438x396, 247.61K)

Thus the conflict in gaming became that of the "actual" gamers versus the outsider. In years past the outsiders were moralizing conservatives who tried to scrub all the "sinfulness" from gaming, and with a little help from some right wing figures, the new enemy were these social justice warriors who tried to impose their own morality onto gaming.

What's notable about this, however, is that while Conservatives from the get-go took the role of moralizing and trying to censor something from the outside, the divide between liberals and gamers is something of an institutional one. The imposition of social justice didn't come from a totally outside force, but rather from the "elites" of the community: the journalists, some reviewers, the game companies themselves.

When GamerGate launched into full swing, with numerous competing websites all insisting "gamers are dead", there was a complete break between of any semblance of unity, and sadly the way the dice fell, some gamers began to associate more with the right than the left.

What's notable is that the "left" elites, the journalists and the like, they took a very patronizing and chauvanistic tone to the culture they still purported to be a part of. Soon enough it became clear that they saw the whole thing as filthy and nearly unsalvageable, they began speaking pretty openly of how they despised the actual "natives" of gaming. There's a Dobson comic that's actually fairly insightful (though not in the way he intended), where he talks about the history of comics, and oddly enough it looks like some Victorian era imperialist propaganda. He describes comic culture and fans as representing "stagnation", and withdrawing behind walls, whereas a "diverse" group of progressives march with flags and bring the light of "civilization"–erm, progressive values to the stagnant and decadent orienta–erm, nerds.

This miniature narrative exists to greater or lesser degrees in most hobbies and even political dialogue these days, and I believe by understanding this the left can begin to make gains. It is entirely possible to win a demographic such as "gamers" back, but the duty of actual leftists and socialists should be not to throw their weight behind projects that reek of a kind of chauvanism to niche hobbies, but to create a mass movement within said hobby. I know there are a few on the left who tangentially believe that inasfar as corporations shield themselves with "progressiveness" or "inclusivity", then they're to be supported over "reactionary" gamers, but much like Trotsky said that in a hypothetical invasion by "liberal" Britain against "fascist" Brazil, one should support the Brazilians in their struggle against imperialism (even if it's imperialism wearing a pleasant face), similarly I believe that the best way to gain traction among niche hobbies would be for the left to focus on the existing demographic within that hobby and the issues that affect them.

Gaming, as in actual console and PC gaming, is still very predominantly white and male in the western world. There will be no mass movement of white men in gaming insisting that we need more diverse voices or less white male protagonists, but you can win a ton of these people over by talking about greedy corporate practices which very tangibly affect their hobbies, and will do more for them than whining about SJWs ever would.

3/3

Attached: quick-comic-history-101-in-the-late-70s-and-eorly-30592388.png (500x1409, 342.8K)

My hope is that by understanding the way these subcultures shifted right, we could discover a way to draw them back left, and then discover similar methods to shift mainstream culture leftward too, preferably growing peoples' interests in communism and the wider left.

Ultimately, I went from liberal to right to far right and now to far left. It was a rough transition, and I'd want to help other people who went through the same experiences I did find their way to the left too. Plus, I feel we got a lot of problems to address collectively that we have to work on to really grow.

Dude just give it up. Gamers don't give a shit about corporate practices. They only care about muh gaymes. Also the right wing activist ones are literal children so they don't care at all about workers' rights.

Attached: smug homosexual342.jpg (944x1050, 145.23K)

I find your argument a bit silly.

Perhaps more than any industry–certainly more than the movie industry–you see controversy emerge again and again in gaming over monetization schemes and corporate nonsense. It's bad enough that EA repeatedly earns the title "most hated company in America"

Time and again I see this exact attitude shoot the left in the foot. Rather than understanding that, as a major force in politics, the real left is miniscule and nearly dead compared to its radical past, you have all these people insisting that "we don't NEED x or y or z demographic because they're our moral/intellectual/spiritual inferiors"

It's self-defeating.

Attached: 1528998155015.png (1000x664, 1.02M)

OP is class hero. Great posts

sounds retarded; thanks for letting me know. I just cancelled my preorder.

This is the pure ideal of communism. You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like.

Zero books is bad and video games are a petty non-issue. Not only is it only one tiny aspect of the process of ideological reproduction, but the people consuming it prove time and time again they are beyond redemption (probably because you need a lot of money and time to waste to get into it as a hobby).

Democrats aren't a part of "the left"

Why should I care about gay muslims or whatever in video games when there are people without electricity, water, literacy, jobs, etc? This whole thread only makes sense if you're a super-online middle class westerner

Attached: 1215709436620.jpg (640x480, 61.07K)

You think everyone has a gaming PC or Xbone or whatever? You do realize there are people beyond your suburban enclave

Rudi is gay, not trans. Smh you didn't even post any of the /tg/ memes about it.

It's very cheap as far as hobbies go.

"Gamers" are fucking subhuman scum.

This. It's amazing how many Leftists here retreat to the line "subcultures are BS" or something, without realising we are essentially a subculture at this point. Fucking Democrat Cops of America is more political than many people here.

Subculture essentially offers a political identity one can join. The Far Right has gained so much by creating for young white men a subculture and identity that appears more fun, welcoming and "dangerous" than the Left SJW alternative. They've found a way to appeal to people who feel fucked over that makes them feel empowered.

We need to find a way to regain our footing on the subculture front. Young people have played a crucial role in every significant revolution.

This is a meme though. Almost nobody in these communities was actually bullied. Instead, they suffer the ersatz perception of this because the bullied nerd is the cultural archetype they place themselves close to. Gaming in particular is one of the biggest mediums in the world. You're more likely to be bullied in videogames than for liking them.


This is a bad reading.
What must be realised is that the entire idea of "natives of gaming" is a sham, a nonsense idea that could only hold due to an island-style internet that has since been abolished - it's as farcical as imagining 4chan users as "natives of imageboards" and then declaring that only 4chan-derived culture is legitimate, ignoring the much longer history of imageboards in Japan. (and the fact that 4chan overtook and displaced the earlier w2ch, in large part because it was much more dumbed down and accessible.)

Nowhere is this more notable than within the demographic shift. Where once dudebros were an enemy, the illegitimate mass-market outsiders, now they are perceived as allies. Any cultural chauvinism towards woke-capital by the so-called natives becomes ludicrous in the face of the fact that half of them are the outsiders of yesterday. In the battle between people who could break for fascism to defend gaming as it stands, and corporate sociopaths I find myself firmly on the side of the sociopath. Whatever matters has already been destroyed, and what hasn't been destroyed should be.

If a left-culture is ever desired in a field the only option for content quality is to create an entirely new community and culture, your own little island. Will it take over the world? No. But it doesn't have to. Trying to redeem pre-existing and declined consumer-culture is a fools game except where excavating the long deceased. (Communist Disco anyone?)


Integrating the kind of imbecile who could be beguiled by gamergate by active efforts rather than by letting the smartest of the pond scum float to the top would be the blairism of the 'real' left. Yes, one should compromise somewhat in the name of progress, yes maybe expecting people to read a tome so large it's author could not finish it is somewhat unreasonable, but at a certain point you become a gamer draped in a red flag rather than a socialist who plays videogames.

the limited (though underrated and upstreamed) power of the real left is precisely the reason we shouldn't pander to these groups. to stick with the migrationary undertone that runs throughout this discussion: they are the outsiders, and they will swamp our tiny island and ruin it for us all. Imagine mario jumping on lenin's face, forever.
bing bing wahoo!

No they haven't. It only seems that way because there is an insane amount of american astroturfing on the internet (also let's not forget how many of them are literal children.) Suburban freaks aren't the future, they are the past. In the coming war most will die horribly at the hands of the oppressed and they will deserve it (the pain and the death.) The first world is done. This is the death rattle of the first world labor aristocracy and of the american empire in general. May it end horribly for them.

Attached: nazi typical soldier.jpg (750x747 93.06 KB, 71.42K)

Imagine being this delusional.

Because X happens to be the ones who hold 90% of the military power and nukes. Your 3rd Worldist revolutiom will be wiped off the face of this world the moment it begins to resemble a ghost of a threat.

Furries?
No, seriously. Furries?

Because that's where the integrative, rather than abolitionist tendency leads.

Attached: oJ08hyf.jpg (1280x1920 83.14 KB, 218.65K)

Yeah this, that bullied nerd stereotype of gamers is an ancient stereotype. Every fucking person I play with online is either married, a chav, a popular middle class dude or some other rich cunt. Like I don't fucking see the weirdos anymore. I'm the only "nerd" in a culture that is aimed at "nerds".

This. Gaming in general is a normalfag hobby now. Gamer "culture" is jut the dominant culture.

Except they fucking are. You do realize education exists, right? There is also the rest of the media industry


Not really

A middle-class hobby would be something like climbing, skiiing, shooting etc. that needs a lot of gear. Playing video games is nothing like that and well within the reach of the average wagie.

And children. Don't forgot that. Children love vidya. Especially suburban kids whose parents give them vidya so they don't have to interact with them. Most of these gg idpol freaks you see on imageboards and twitter are kids.

This is what that statement is today.


It is impossible to have a functioning liberal democracy in a country fractured along ethnic, cultural and religious lines as Egypts recent disastrous experiment with democracy shows.


They were never a part of it. These were all people with journalism degrees bitter about being reduced to write for an audience of virgin neckbeards living in their mothers basements instead of writing real news for major prestigious publications.

in defence of gaming the costs aren't that bad
a quick proxy for determining who to engage with may be if they spend more than $60/yr on videogames. emulator users and pirates are a different demographic.
in general the cost-dynamic of a community is an interesting tool for social analysis. even otherwise fine communities may die on the rocks of being too expensive for real people. at all points and opportunities this should be opposed, especially when the barriers are social rather than technological. even seemingly surmountable barriers for a first world american like a $1 charge become impassible minefields when dealing with people in countries under sanction, with poor exchange rates, etc. this is particularly a point that should be used to guilt trip liberals and obliterate anyone who tries to commercialise their hobby. nothing, but nothing, but nothing does more damage to a human community than the united states dollar.

Literally fan fiction tier garbage.

don't you guys have phones?

mobile games aren't real gaming >:(

Attached: screen-shot-2015-09-03-at-3-09-01-pm.png (718x357, 384.11K)

Yeah well try telling Activision that.

The right part of the image is entirely true though. Most video games are fascist indoctrination tools, just take a look at the FPS and RTS genre (not the fanbase, the way the actual games play).

I think you might be a part of the problem OP is talking about.

the fascist worldview maps almost perfectly onto the standard mechanics of your average strategy game. you can argue about the implications of that, but it's a fascinating similarity.

The only people freaking out about vidya are right wingers though.

Nah you mong, you've got your wires crossed. Games DO include sexist/racist narratives, but that's not what makes them fascist. RTS games, where you have complete dictatorial control over masses of people and the only way you can win is complete ahnialiation of another race/nation, ARE fascist. Same for FPS, where most FPS games have been used as recruiting tools for the US army and regurgitate the same russiophobic/islamic terrorism stories. Sorry that you invested so much of your life in GG, you need to move on child.

Only FPS games have that fash tendency due to their connection to the US military.

RTS games are fascist by design, as I explained.

Fucking normies.

...

I never said "racism and sexism are inherently fascist". Learn punctuation, the sentence after the former FACT was just another fact to show you that games AREN'T politcally neutral. Reading comprehension.


I don't give a shit about fictional fairy races respective philosophy. The actual GAME MECHANICS stem from fascist ideology.

I didn't realize that learning fascist ideology was a part of game design courses.

ah yes, the idealist.

Or you know, the annihilation of an opposing ideology. Which is true, or at least up to the point of surrender. Also, the idea of RTS's being fascist is so utterly retarded that it just makes me think of that Zizek talk about Rammstein and how people who claim them to be fascist are making a surface level analysis and miss the point entirely, which is that those qualities were never necessarily fascist to begin with and that Rammstein is in fact taking back those qualities from fascism and from being associated with it.

dont forget about the recent, the division. you play as civ mercs fighting for a dying american government.

lmao

No it it is only fascist in the minds of retards like yourself. I bet you think chess is fascist as well since the goal is to kill of all your enemies and corner the enemy leader into submission.

Attached: 1514486857451.jpg (999x815, 144.86K)

Yes, pick me those two examples of "socialist" RTS games. Children should be banned from Zig Forums.

Part of the problem is you just called rts games fascist instead of explaining what about their context or execution makes them so.

Wiping out an enemy faction isn't in itself fascist. Neither is having dictatorial control over a society at large or in miniature. Otherwise the people fighting against fascists are fascists themselves, assuming that the fascist drive to exterminate can itself only be prevented by eliminating fascists, etc.

no it isn't you fucking moron

Attached: i'm black, you're white, no one dies.gif (320x320, 37.69K)

Genocide for entertainment is fascist. Racial exceptionalism/supremacism, as is often seen in RTS games is fascist. I don't need to explain why that is fascist, unless you're a fucking idiot.

Actually, you're probably a pedantic moron, so yeah - all RTS games impicitly convey the merging of corporate powers with the state and imperialism as the main goal.

so now that we've established that chess isn't fascist: is the musical fascist?

Attached: it's actually about the cold war not about chess that's why the chess board is falling apart it's very clever.jpg (600x600, 55.89K)

Is C&C race vs race to you?

Getting a checkmate in chess like this is never that easy. In some games, you'll be trading a majority of your pieces just to obtain better positioning for a few.

Is checkers fascist to you?

Kill your enemies and force the enemy leader to surrender you mouth breather.


But we haven't retard.

Why are SocDems so fucking stupid?

Btw, this has to be a falseflag. No one is this retarded.

All of the oldest games of ancient humanity are about simulating tribal conflict so the SocDem retard will probably think it is fascist but will never admit to it because he/she/it just hates video games.

never is a very big word.


why are you backtracking from "kill all of your enemies" to "kill your enemies"? have you already forgotten what you said? all your enemies. no takebacks.
(Also, nobody says "killing" in chess, you capture your enemies. Have you literally never played chess?)

yes i hate videogames, it's true. especially this, my most anti-videogame post:
my most hated game is chessmaster - which unlike chess, is definitely fascist, as seen in the fact that the chessmaster is an old white man.

C&C literally biases itself towards anti-communists and is about total war against the actual soviet union or a poor caricature of communists in the NOD.

Mouth breather.

Stop being disingenious, RTS games are VASTLY different to board games. It's not comparable, apples to oranges. Dumb child.

what a fucking mess of a post
type it again.

State your objections or fuck off. Will you tell me games like rise of nations doesn't do exactly what I described?

But you said the text on the right side of the image was true and defending the costs does not keep you from just hating games because you think they are all racist, homophobic and sexist.

Man we don't even need to go that far back, company of heroes 2 has its plot centered around nazi myths straight from the mouth of goebbels.

no i didn't, go look again. pay particular attention to the flora, particualrly symbols associated with the house of lancaster.

Read again.

You know you can surrender in an RTS, right? Either way, this whole discussion is stupid. Under your logic, everything competitive that involves "killing" imaginary units which don't exist is fascist. Well, that is unless they surrender, you say instead you're "capturing" them, or leave at least one of them alive. Then it's suddenly not fascist I suppose.

Attached: 1466273078514.png (1520x1080, 1.09M)

I didn't say this. This particular line of conversation has been specifically about chess. Read the thread again.

There is difference between saying "This RTS has a garbage story filled with anti-soviet propaganda" and saying "ALL RTS ARE INHERENTLY FASCIST PERIOD".

Oh the moron is going to anime spam now, well thread over I guess.


Also can we not be dense, can we not operate on the same level as disingenious Zig Forumstards? Please don't think of fascism as ONLY something straight out of wolfenstein, please be sensible.

So now the house of Lancaster is fascist? What is the context here?

They are all inherently fascist. The only "strategy" games that aren't fascist are city builders.

pay attention.

City builders aren't strategy games.

I am paying attention. Tell me more about the house of Lancaster.

well first things first it's from lancaster

No, it's not. It's also not something out of an RTS or is something even related to RTS's wahtsoever. This is like the Zizek talk on discipline and how discipline doesn't suddenly become fascist because fascisst expouse a routine of discipline in their propaganda. You have this whole thing ass backwards and observe things like a liberal would.

Oh, so you don't know what fascism is, I see

whats your favourite vidcon?

And how does the house of Lancaster relate to a discussion about sub cultures revolving around conflict simulators?

Shut the fuck up about Zizek, I don't care about that fraud.

well you see the fascist lancastrian chess players had a certain symbol that they used to distinguish themselves from the house of york.
can you guess what it was?

Searching for arguments. Found none.

What was it and, this is important, what year was it adopted?

is google broken

If you mean a video game convention, I've unfortunately never been to one. Too far away and expensive, and most of them seem to be filled with AAA developers shilling whatever rehashed flavor of the week game they want to convince people to buy again for the fifth time. I mostly play C&C mods, DF, and MegaMek

RTS games WOULD be the perfect genre of video games in an EXPLICITLY fascist state.

No it is not broken, did you mean the Lancastrian rose or something else?

can you imagine what the relevance of that symbol might be?

No clue but I am pretty sure it was adopted before the 20th century and is a symbol of aristocracy and not fascism.

But what if the opposite were true and RTS games WOULD be the perfect genre of video games in an EXPLICITLY socialist state?

Attached: b1iVM0i_d.jpg (553x740, 71.06K)

Neither is true. RTS games are the perfect genre in an explicitly KOREAN state.

train simulators are conceptually socdem but dovetail games is blairite

CIV GAMES ARE INHERENTLY ANTI-LIBERAL AND COMMAND ECONOMY PILLED

I've seen some of that, and while pc/woke stuff in it was a common complaint, there was also some stuff about lore bugs and just general shittiness in writing. The writing did look really shitty to me.
When you chain together assumptions into one big assumption, the probability of the big assumption being true is much lower than the average probability of one part of the chain. Consider the possibility that the writing has gotten more corny. Also, Bloodlines came out 15 years ago. When people remember media from their childhood or teenage years, they remember the impression it made on them back then. It's probable that people who were teens back then now have a heightened awareness of when writing gets corny, and that they are comparing the new thing not even directly with the old thing based on their tastes developed to their current standards, but just the impression they remember. Nostalgia is a common affliction. People tend to remember the best stuff, and they often don't play/watch/read again, but just rely on the impression they remember from a time when they were more easily impressed.
Young people don't like Trump as much as old people. I suspect you are looking at very specific niche groups and have an exaggerated belief of their size and impact.

Doesn't seem to exist: spacecommune.com/10-insights-on-gamers-political-views-according-to-facebook-data/ Specific game communities can be skewed in this or that way, but that's about it. Gamers as a whole aren't particularly conservative or particularly gay or particularly anything.
From what I remember: They didn't deliver the content on time as promised. Breakdown of how much money was needed for what was skeezy. Why do you need so much for games and consoles, if you have been gaming since forever (as Sarkeesian claimed in one interview, while saying gaming was new to her in another). Can't you just mostly rely on your massive gaming collection and borrowing things from your gaming friends and the library? Sarkeesian and her colleague John McIntosh also ripped gameplay sections from other gaming channels, so it is very unclear how much time they spent, if any, with the products they criticized.
You sound like the kind of person who gets shoved into a locker by the kind of person who usually gets shoved into a locker.

For gaming that would be copyright duration, bullshit patents, DRM, malware, pay2win DLC, advertising features not in game at launch (or ever), forced online, gambling regulations.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, guys. I mean even Orwell wrote that you'd be hard-pressed to find some way to get a child to play with a "pacifist doll" instead of action figures. People enjoy RTS games because conflict is something entertaining to the human species, I don't believe it would subtly make anyone fascist.

And to address other points


People here are taking propaganda for objective reality. I know a lot of right wingers who became right wing almost entirely in response to "SJW" nonsense, I went to college with a few of them. You can call the decision immature, but that's not addressing anything.

I really don't get what's with this obsession so many people on the left have with the failings or impurities of people: yeah maybe they were immature, maybe they aren't that smart, maybe they were brash, but at the end of the day these things are pretty ethereal and what matters is who they support and why.


I noticed christ-coms seem to be the most Zig Forumsish leftists on here.

It's always death and murder and enough condemnations to make the westboro baptist church blush. I have a sneaking feeling that the underlying psychological issues that would make someone a Zig Forumslack are found in equal measure in christ-coms. No offense.

Never said they were, however no man is an island. Many leftists in the U.S. come from being democrats first, like it or not the culture of the democrats cross-pollinates with the culture of the left.


I find concern for the multitude of people in the world living in abject poverty can approach a kind of aesthetic fetishism that stagnates political discussion. Yes there are people starving out there, no we don't have much if any of those here in the U.S., you don't need an aesthetically "pure" communism derived from laborers working in coal mines and dressing like victorian industrial workers, you can and should address a multitude of issues people from numerous walks of life deal with. Even if it's something as niche as hobbies and sub-cultures. There's no harm in it.

Attached: 1530828407890.png (632x1324, 680.64K)