/gamergatehq/ - #GamerGate and #NotYourShield

4. Alex Lifschitz

Kotaku peon, one of the Five Guys, and the main reason why the video games media is attacking its customers. Has written multiple articles defending the corrupt status quo and explaining why dissenters are subhuman filth. Also a big Twitter superstar, who woulda guessed.

3. Nicholas Nyberg

This admitted pedophile has garnered a lot of goodwill from the authoritarian leftist press for his false, rephrensible, cowardly attacks on GG on Twitter for the past year. So much that the media makes ridiculous excuses for the fact that Nyberg admitted he was grooming his eight year old cousin for sex. Should be in jail, but his SJW privilege and tranny privilege ensure that he will never be held accountable for his crimes.

2. Jonathan McIntosh

This asshole is the main reason why video games are being censored now. A super-rich immensely privileged white man who once complained that his dad's private island didn't have an internet connection good enough for him to play Diablo 3, McIntosh spends his days on (sigh) Twitter, where he articulates his desire to enslave or exterminate men while blocking anyone and everyone. McIntosh thinks he's the Penis Jesus, come to save womynkind from the inferior barbaric subhuman male race. He's also an even worse writer than Leigh Alexander.

At least we can take pleasure in the fact that when McIntosh makes the exact same statements complete with the same spelling errors on his much more famous sockpuppet's Twitter account, they'll get a thousand times as many favorites as when he posts them under his own faggoty white male face.

1. Chelsea Van Valkenberg

Could the number one enemy of free speech and transparency on this list of unbelievable assholes be anyone else but this psychopath?

Aside from fucking a minimum of Five Guys to promote her objectively poor text adventure game on corrupt video game sites, Van Valkenberg has also admitted to being a rapist and murderer (the latter of which is probably one of her insane delusions); tried to shut down a rival feminist game jam that didn't invite her; lied about receiving harassment from a forum for depressed male virgins (whom she knew no one would feel sorry for); got Youtube to delete one of MundaneMatt's Quinnspiracy videos; got her friend at Reddit to delete over 20,000 comments that questioned her (under the spurious claim that each comment was harassing and doxing, the same claim Van Valkenberg uses to make money today); arranged to have her friends in the game industry shut down all discussion of the subject; manipulated, gaslit, and cucked Eron Gjoni for several years and got the entire western world's media to attack him for whistleblowing; joined her repugnant friend Phil Fish in harassing a guy on Twitter that she had molested at a wedding; attacked people on Twitter all day every day while pretending her life was hard, tried to get the United Nations to censor the world's internet because people were mentioning her crimes; has almost every website on the internet sucking her dick despite her obvious horribleness; and did some really gross nudes once. That she falsely claimed Gjoni spread when she knew that she had professionally made and distributed them all along. Did I miss anything?

Van Valkenberg is unquestionably the worst person in the entire rotten world of vidya. She is a criminal, a hypocrite, an abuser, a serial liar, and a monster. The media loves her.

Honorable mention: Robert Chipman

Moviebob's problem is that he says out loud what social justice warriors are actually thinking. Namely, that christians, libertarians, and gamblegolfers should be exterminated. No, he's not joking or exaggerating; he brags frequently and openly about murdering his enemies. Most SJWs try to hide their insane bigotry with ordinary-sounding euphemisms; Moviebob just wants to imprison and murder dissenters and he'll gladly tell everyone on the internet. He's such a pathetic fat fuck that it's easy to forget that his rhetoric is pure evil.

>>288004

Nice list. Well done.

I think I agree with the order

>>288004

OP, you forgot to mention Valkenburger's Rebel Jam scam, the sabothage of the Pepsico gamejam, the Swatting of Cernovich, Her pasticipation in helldump, the perjury, libel, slander or what ever you call someone who falselly acuses people of spreading revenge porn.

And let's not forget using Robin WIlliam's suicide to promote Depresion Quest

>>288016

She's committed so many vile acts that it's hard to remember them all. Thanks for the reminder.

>>288004

>Jim Sterling

>wide influence

lol I just noticed this

That list pretty much covers it all.

I'd add Ben Kuchera in it in place of Jay Allen.

>>288019

The bitch sadly does have influence and his audience treats him like a messiah.

>>288021

>I'd add Ben Kuchera in it in place of Jay Allen.

There's so fucking many. I had to cut Peter Coffin from the list; he and his realdoll-looking girlfriend are hilarious but not as dangerous to the truth as the others on this list.

So fucking many.

No Ben Kuchera? No Patricia Hernandez? No Nathan Greyson, Katherine Cross, Geordie Tait, Matt Lees, Chris Kluwe, Nostalgia Chick or Todd in the Shadows?

>>288028

Sorry, mate. I probably could have made a top 100 list and have had plenty of material.

>>288005

Liftshitz isn't one of the 5 guys since he voluntarily entered into an (unknowingly) open relationship as Eron's replacement after the Zoe Post.

Good summary otherwise.

>>288004

>4 kikes on that list already

only 2% of the US population

every fucking time

>>288030

>Eron's replacement after the Zoe Post.

wow, how desperate.

>>288110

>That shaved head

>That Beard

Why would anyone o for such a look?

>>288004

I made a "similar" list a couple of months ago

https://gamergating.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/top-ten-worse-of-the-worst-from-the-other-side/

>>288115

The hair migrated to the other side of his head.

>>288138

Seconding this anon, Kucheracha us a fucking disgrace for the industry

>>288004

>>288005

Well done. This should be an article somewhere. People love top 10 lists.

>>288118

>she

>>288127

Thanks mate.

>>288005

Regarding Josh, I don't think he has a private island (or at least he wasn't referring to one when he made the Diablo 3 tweet). He was referring to the San Juan Islands, which as far as I know aren't private. I could be wrong, though.

Doesn't change the stupendous irony of a multi-millionaire trust fund baby calling other people privileged. But I thought I might point that out.

>>288004

Nick should be #1. He's a fucking pedo.

But then… I don't know who's worse. Him or his defenders.

>>288005

>tried to shut down a rival feminist game jam that didn't invite her

That one's not true. It was one of her associates who did that.

>>289241

> tried to shut down a rival feminist game jam that didn't invite her

Correction. Quinn tried to shut down TFYC game jam because she wasn't going to get paid royalties straight away (she accused them of asking her to do work for no money). She tried to play it off as the TFYC being sexist by their conditions that an trans person needed to identify as female before the competition started. She called this transphobia and got er goon squad to harass the TFYC.

She also shut down the "Polaris Game Jam" and started her own rival game jam the same day.

You are combining 2 separate events into one blurry mess of misinformation.

>>288005

> It was one of her associates who did that.

with the help of zoe who supplied the relevant information which allowed TFYC to be doxed and harassed.

>>289241

If someone acts on your behalf and you don't drag them over hot coals for it, then you condone the action, making it your action.

>>288110

>>288166

>Phil "Childhood Is A Victorian Invention And A Fetish" Sandifer

>Phil "Vivian James is someone's masturbation fantasy but also a supernatural entity created by Gamergate for Evil" Sandifer

https://archive.is/HLwyx

I like the Nod respectfully towards you

The memes that came out of him was glorious though like Phil he pretty much disappeared when GG kicked in

Disrespectful mention to Arin and Suzy hanson but they backed off once they were pretty much called out by everyone they knew

>The Pedo ain't nr1

Really nigga?

>>288115

Why didn't any drawfag still made an upside down pic of him with beard hair?

>>289325

Oh, good. I guess he was only pretending to be retarded.

>>289325

Is that why the game didn't get stripped from greenlight after getting greenlit?

Oh wait.

>>289315

It's a testament to Spacedad's worthlessness that he didn't even cross my mind while writing this list.

Didn't Choo Choo man back out? He did this thing where he said he would stop being a massive cunt for aGG.

Or was that just more lies?

>>288004

HUACfag here. None of these people would have any influence, or be on the streets if we had a HUAC to stop them. Jim Sterling, Sarah Butts and McIntosh would be in jail by now if we had a HUAC in the US still in effect. Because of the people named in OP's list, among others, gamers, and US citizens are more in danger now than the people were in the 1950s

>>289624

>suggesting we establish neo-HUAC

>to prevent dipshits from censoring stuff

…

>HUAC

>to prevent censorship

Daily reminder that you're just as bad as SJWs.

>>289647

This was NEVER about censorship, you fucking rube! Why would a HUAC in 2015 even suggest something like that? You are completely missing the point of what HUAC was all about.

Furthermore, let me as you this question: WHERE THE FUCK is it written in the US Constitution that WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE;the average joes and the plain janes, are not allowed to investigate the government for traitors, the media for traitors, the video games industry for traitors, and find them, root them out and get them out before we are all killed? Killed by people like Brianna Wu

>>289681

Not sure if trolling, screencapping for Ghazi, or just stupid.

There's a difference between investigating people and organizations and going on a massive witch hunt where people are accused of treason with little to no evidence and then ruining their careers over it.

Replace "treason" with "problematic language" and you're exactly the same as SJWs suggesting game dev companies should implement blacklists to render people they don't agree with unemployable. There's literally no different – you're both suggesting attacking and damaging people because they dared to wrongthink.

And where in the Constitution does it say people aren't allowed to have specific beliefs? To use an example relevant to the original HUAC, where in the Constitution does it say you're not allowed to join the Communist Party?

Are you suggesting we turn ourselves into Soviet Union or Peoples' Republic of China lite, where only the "correct" sanctioned political parties are allowed, and any inkling of support for any others is grounds for immediate lynching?

I mean hell, I disagree with the opinions of SJWs and people like Wu, McIntosh, etc as much as anyone else here, but if you think that's grounds for forcing them out of the industry or otherwise HUAC-ing them, you're bloody fucking insane, and you're no proponent of free speech.

>>289701

>where in the Constitution does it say you're not allowed to join the Communist Party?

Where in the US Constitution does it say you're not allowed to join ISIS?

>>289749

having a political belief != killing people

You're committing the "Hitler owned a dog, therefore all dog owners are evil" fallacy. The reason joining ISIS isn't legal isn't because we've outlawed Islam or any particular belief, it's because ISIS commits acts of murder and terrorism.

Outlawing beliefs is not and should never be allowed. Only *actions* matter. If you're seriously going to claim we should outlaw beliefs or ruin peoples' lives simply because they hold certain beliefs, and not because of the actual things they do, then I strongly suggest you go join the aGG crowd and start screeching about the evils of "toxic masculinity" and claiming hate speech should be banned.

You may not realize it, but that's exactly what you're doing. You're complaining about hateful beliefs and how they should be banned and how you're triggered by people holding views contrary to yours and how the people with said beliefs should by run out of the industry and have their careers ruined. Hell, you even threw in a comparison of people with unsavory political beliefs to a terrorist organization – something the aGGros themselves like to do.

Face it. All you have to do is change around a few words and you're an overly-offended Tumblrina. The only difference is what "triggers" you complain about.

And since you've referenced the US Constitution several times, I think I'll post a snippet of my favorite part of said constitution – a part you seem to be forgetting in much the same way as the Tumblrinas and SJWs forget it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

>>289749

Also, please tell me exactly what the SJWs have done to have their careers ruined or face a HUAC-style investigation of their beliefs? Have they directly threatened physical harm on specific people? Have they attempted to act on said threats?

The worst the SJWs have done is said hateful things, suggest we trample all over the right to freedom of speech, and possibly involve themselves in fraud and money laundering. That last claim may be cause for a criminal investigation at an individual level, but it is NOT a cause for blacklisting an entire political belief or ruining someone's career because they just happened to agree with someone who was involved in a criminal act. The first two – saying hateful things and suggesting we destroy freedom of speech – are despicable, but they are NOT grounds for an investigation. They are NOT grounds to ruin someone's career. If you think that they are, you are no different than the aGGros who suggest that we should be blacklisted for our beliefs.

17th century Salem is calling; they want their witch hunt back.

>>289753

>The reason joining ISIS isn't legal isn't because we've outlawed Islam or any particular belief, it's because ISIS commits acts of murder and terrorism.

Just like the Communist Party. Communists have killed around 150 million people.

>>289755

>Also, please tell me exactly what the SJWs have done to have their careers ruined or face a HUAC-style investigation of their beliefs? Have they directly threatened physical harm on specific people? Have they attempted to act on said threats?

Yes, there have been SJW terrorists that have killed people over the decades, plus cultural marxism is probably the next biggest threat to humanity after a large wayward asteroid.

>>289766

Communism is a political ideology. ISIS is an organization.

They are not equivalent.

Acting as an agent of the USSR was very much a crime in the US. Being a fundamentalist Muslim is not.

>>289771

64ad53 said

>where in the Constitution does it say you're not allowed to join the Communist Party?

The Communist Party is an organisation. Anyway, SJWs are cultural marxists and cultural marxism needs to be utterly destroyed.

>>289701

>>289753

>>289755

You people could not be any more wrong about HUAC, but I'm not surprised.

Allow me to explain what it actually is. HUAC was an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives that looked into subversion within the US government.

It investigated those accused of being communist in the US government. It investigated those accused of being communist in the US media, especially Hollywood. To a large extent, it was successful in exposing communist infiltration. It rooted out the communist operative and spy Alger Hiss. HUAC revealed the extent of communist infiltration in the film industry. HUAC served America and protected it from what was then considered the greatest threat to national security, in this case, communism.

The reason the three of you have a distorted view of HUAC is because of Hollywood and the media itself. After the 1950s, a generation of leftists and fellow travelers of the communist party in academia and the media all claimed the same things you three have: The efforts of HUAC and Joseph McCarthy in the Senate, had been nothing more than a witch hunt. They claimed that it had destroyed the lives of people who had nothing to do with communism. Remember all the movies about the "innocent actors and directors" in Hollywood who were "picked on" by the"evil right wingers," and they jumped out of windows? It was all bullshit. All a lie.

Most of them(not all of them) were absolute communist spies who were trying to make pro-Soviet movies.

How do I know this? What is my evidence that HUAC was on the right track? Because in the 1990s, the Venona Transcripts of intelligence intercepts from the former Soviet Union were published proved that most of the people that HUAC had been investigating in the 50s, had in fact been involved in communist groups, and many of them had, in fact, been spying on the US for the Soviet Union.

The old leftists, as well as people from /leftypol/ and some from /pol/ claim the HUAC was a bunch of crazy, right wing knuckle draggers on a witch hunt, but the truth is exactly the opposite.

I also encourage you to do some research on the Venona Transcripts, the Pumpkin Papers, Alger Hiss, and the Rosenberg's

>>289766

>Just like the communist party.

Ah, okay. So while we're outlawing an entire belief because of the actions of a few of the people who believed in it, let's outlaw Islam, Christianity, capitalism, nationalism, and just about every other ideology.

What you don't seem to realize is that you're talking about criminalizing an *entire way of thinking* simply because some people holding that way of thinking have committed acts of violence. Like >>289771 said, you can't use the actions of an organization to criminalize and entire goddamn ideology, and you certainly can't make it illegal to hold beliefs that you don't happen to agree with; not unless you plan on returning us to the age of witch hunts.

You still don't seem to realize what you're claiming we should do. You're claiming we should criminalize *an entire political ideology* simply because some of the people who believe in it may be bad. You are no different from the most radical SJWs.

I'll make an analogy you might be able to relate to. Let's say SJWs took over the government, and declared that, due to the incredible number of people killed by Christians, and due to the negative effect the Catholic church had on scientific development, belief in Christianity would be outlawed. Anyone unwilling to give up their faith would be imprisoned, and anyone suspected or rumored of holding such beliefs would be investigated by the newly formed House of Problematic Activities Committee. Anyone found "guilty" by this kangaroo court would be blacklisted and have their lives and careers ruined, for the crime of believing in an ideology that led to the deaths of countless individuals and the repression of scientific development.

This is exactly what you're proposing, just with "Christianity" replaced with "cultural marxism" and "House of Un-American Activities Committee" replaced by the "House of Problematic Activities Committee." Your ideas and the one outlined above are exactly the same in every other way. You're both talking about outlawing an entire belief merely because some bad people held a similar belief.

You're also incredibly Orwellian. What are you going to do, arrest the SJWs for crimethink? Charge them with thoughtcrimes and wrongthink? Accuse them of not crimestopping themselves before they were sucked into their ideology? While you're at it, Orwell was also a socialist – maybe you should look into burning his books, because something something people with similar beliefs killed people, therefore we should outlaw an entire political ideology!

>>289842

And? The fact that the HUAC was successful in browbeating people for the horrendous crime of having a different political belief makes them a good thing? I don't CARE how stupid their beliefs are. I don't CARE how many movies they're planning on making expressing those beliefs. I don't CARE that there are a large number of people with said ideology in an industry, and I don't CARE that they happen to believe in a similar ideology as someone who is a very despicable person. They still have every right to believe in that ideology and express their belief in said ideology.

And yes, the HUAC DID browbeat people with an opposing ideology. I hate to break it to you, but ruining peoples' careers and lives by blacklisting them is browbeating them. I hate to break it to you, but if you seriously believe that's not the case, you're akin to the Tumblrites that claim that being accused of rape is a "learning experience" for men, and that it isn't really that bad, because as long as they're acquitted no government action is taken against them and something something free speech only applies to government action. Again, I'll point to a part of the Constitution I hold very dear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

"of abridging the freedom of speech"

>>>/tumblr/

>>289880

You must also not care about history. For you seem intent on ignoring my evidence, and any facts I lay on the table. It's like I could break into the White House, steal top secret documents to prove my claim, show them to you, and you'd STILL call me a liar. I would explain more historical events, set the record straight, and give a rebuttal to your claim. But to be blunt, that would be like playing Mozart for a tree frog; you're not interested.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your own input and will take into consideration.

Farewell.

>>289993

If you had any reading comprehension skills, you'd notice that I didn't say anything about your "history" not being true. I pointed out that restricting peoples' rights or livelihoods simply for sharing a political ideology with people who may have committed illegal acts is exactly the type of thing that a Tumblrina would say. Sure, some Communists in the media may have wanted to support the Soviet Union. Sure, they may have attempted to subvert people through the media. That doesn't make what they do illegal, and it sure as hell doesn't give you or anyone else the right to abridge their rights or ruin their livelihoods for their political beliefs.

Think about it: what you're saying is identical to SJWs who claim pro-GG media should be censored, and its creators blacklisted, because they are subverting their political beliefs. It's exactly the same thing.

Brianna Wu is the worst

>>289624

Gommie here. These people would be victimized by the HUAC - they'd be running it.

>>290017

*wouldn't be victimized

fucking typos

>>290017

You need to remember a lot of the mainstream media played along with this shit.

>>290009

You couldn't be any more wrong. Communists are murderers; they're not good people.

Do you deny that communism cost over 100 million lives in the century we left a few years ago? Do you deny that the propaganda and tactics are very similar to that of a lot of communist regimes such as Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia?

Do you also deny McIntosh supporting Islamofascists in Palestine? David Draimen of Disturbed called him out on that.

>>290035

i love communism and hope israel gets bombed

>>290035

Christians are murders too I hope you realize. PLENTY of people killed by Christians. Not to mention the various people killed by the 1percent back in the day for DARING to unionize.

But then you're an idiot so I'd expect you to forget that.

Moron.

>>288110

This guy is so fucking ugly holy shit.

>>290053

no way man sooo sexy

10/10 would sex

>>290114

brianna chan is kawaii

>>290035

>Communists are murderers; they're not good people.

Oh! I must have been not paying attention when we decided that random individuals are allowed to decide that someone isn't a "good person" for not following the same political ideology they do, and are therefore not protected by the same constitutional rights!

My mistake. Say, when do we start sending SJWs to the camps? After all, they have committed the thoughtcrime of daring to believe in the same political ideology as people considered to be "bad," so all that stupid "inalienable rights" bullshit just doesn't apply to them, right?

I'll get the cattle cars ready. Who wants to fire up the furnaces?

>>290127

>My mistake. Say, when do we start sending SJWs to the camps? After all, they have committed the thoughtcrime of daring to believe in the same political ideology as people considered to be "bad," so all that stupid "inalienable rights" bullshit just doesn't apply to them, right?

You and the HUAC faggot are shitting up every thread in this forum.

Pretty fucking good list, OP, I have to say.

>>288005

The only thing you missed about Van Valkenberg is the fact that she used to a goon on Helldump 2000 who has admitted that she went after and harassed some Pokemon fangirl. She has also admitted that she misses it, meaning she regrets nothing, not even helping to ruin people's lives

>>290127

I would never call for them to be sent to camps, anon. Again you're putting words into my mouth. You think communists are not murderers regardless? And by the way, I'd like to state that Anita's ilk are the ones calling for people like you and me to be put into gulags and camps. The proof is in the present. Could you be any more myopic?

I'm gonna tell you a story about another "nice, mild mannered" college professor. He was a professor who studied Marxism at the University of Paris at the Sorbonne. When he returned to his home country he instituted social reform; he transformed his nation. He didn't like the mild capitalism he saw in his homeland because he felt it was "unfair" and wanted the rich to pay "a little bit more.". He wanted the evil bourgeoisie to pay their fair share, and that's how it started. In the end, it turned into a mountain of skulls.

His name was Pol Pot. The country was Cambodia. It is a true story. Watch out where the rhetoric starts; it always ends up with a mountain of skulls.

Now it doesn't matter whether or not people like Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu are murderers. What DOES matter is where their rhetoric will take this nation. And people seem to not understand how close Sarkeesian is, emotionally and intellectually, to Pol Pot.

I'm going to say it again. Pol Pot was a nice man. He was a professor. He went to Paris and studied Marxism which is an economic theory on the redistribution of wealth, which is what SJWs worship. He called for a more " fair and equitable" system. But in the end, anyone with a pair of eyeglasses—the doctors, lawyers, engineers, the police chief—the entire educated class were subjected to slave labor camps and brutally tortured and killed. And do you know who did the killings, anon? They were 14-25 year old animals and savages who wore red scarves and they were called Khmer Rouge. We have millions of indoctrinated young people in the form of SJWs and OWS who would gladly put on a red scarf, and put you into a slave labor camp to be brutally tortured and killed. All they need are the right people to put them in action.

Be very careful indeed with your call for things like "fairness" because it always leads to a mountain of skulls.

>>288005

>She is a criminal, a hypocrite, an abuser, a serial liar, and a monster. The media loves her.

kek

nice job, op… that last addition especially reminded me of milo's humour and writing style

>>290214

Wow! I didn't know that Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu were direct reincarnations of Pol Pot!

Ironically, you're doing the same exact thing the SJWs love to do – you're saying that people should be punished as if they were criminals because they share the same political ideology of a criminal. You can keep saying the whole "Communists were BAD!" thing all you like; that doesn't change the fact that, no matter how much you keep saying it, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and all the other SJWs are NOT Pol Pot. They are NOT Stalin. And you can't punish them as if they were Pol Pot or Stalin just because they believe in similar ideas.

Here's an example of your logic, just repurposed for another ideology.

In 1965, members of the Indonesian military organized the assassination of several military officers. This assassination was carried out by people who claimed to have good intentions – all they wanted was to reduce the influence of the Soviet Union on Indonesian politics. However, the military scapegoated the attacks on Indonesia's Communist party, and as a result, anyone with affiliations to said party was rounded up, investigated, and interned. Between half a million and two million people were killed, and the event was heavily censored. Anyone claiming that a genocide was occurring was "disappeared." All the Indonesian military wanted was to root out the Communist influence in their country, and that's how it started. In the end, it turned into a mountain of skulls.

Because of this, we must investigate and blacklist anyone claiming to be anti-Communist! Clearly, anyone sharing a political ideology with these murderers is also a murderer by extension, and should be treated as such!

Now do you see the stupidity of treating everyone who believes in a political ideology as criminals just because some people who also believed in the ideology were despicable people? By your logic, we should arrest all Muslims, Christians, Communists, anti-Communists, and just about anyone who isn't entirely apolitical for that matter. All of them share an ideology with SOME person who's done horrible things.

>>290292

Okay, now you're showing me that you don't know how to lose an argument gracefully. Two ways that you are doing this in your rebuttal.

1. You are deflecting the argument away from my point, because you know I'm right, and you need to distract me from being right.

2. You mis-state and/or over exaggerate my position to make me look foolish.

Case in point.

>Because of this, we must investigate and blacklist anyone claiming to be anti-Communist! Clearly, anyone sharing a political ideology with these murderers is also a murderer by extension, and should be treated as such!

>Now do you see the stupidity of treating everyone who believes in a political ideology as criminals just because some people who also believed in the ideology were despicable people? By your logic, we should arrest all Muslims, Christians, Communists, anti-Communists, and just about anyone who isn't entirely apolitical for that matter. All of them share an ideology with SOME person who's done horrible things.

And to that, I say, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! BALDERDASH!

If you can't lose an argument gracefully; if you can't stop stuffing words in my mouth, if you can't stop exaggerating my position to make yourself look good, I have no desire to debate with you.

We're done here. I will never welcome you to the table of ideas. Come back when you have a cool head and demeanor.

>>290694

Speak for yourself

>>290694

>All I did was restate your exact point, just repurposed for a different ideology.

Exactly. It's still mis-stating or exaggerating someone's point to make someone look foolish.

You are suggesting that I investigate Christians for their beliefs which is what I did not propose or suggest at all. YOU, did.

You keep throwing the same reason why we should not have a HUAC like a security blanket despite how much evidence I'm putting on the table. Instead, you accuse me of saying something I'm not, and do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALA" over and over.

I'm not the idiot here, anon. YOU are. And because of your inability to see the writing on the wall, when liberalism the mental disorder is unleashed on America, the SJWs will come for you first.

Arguing with you, is like demanding the wind to respect you, and I want no part of that. To quote the Klingon Kahless the Unforgettable, "the wind does not respect a fool."

>>290292

Comunist are evil… i don't think they should be put to death, but they certainly should be kept aeay from schools, goverment employments and all public positions

Nothing but harm has come from Marxist ideology no matter what it's aplied to, wether its economy politics, culture, art, entretanament, Marxism and everything that came out of it are the root of all the evils that are plaging our modern world, in the same way religions once where, (and still are in some places)

Death is not the solution, you only make martyrs out of this, Public riddicule and shaming are the perfect solution to get rid of them, and making sure they can't recruit new "belivers".

We mock them because they are wrong, History has prooven so several times, their ideology is nothing but an inmature masturbatory fantasy.

then we shaming for what they support, and the horrible crims commited by the religion they follow, we shame the cristians for the Inquisition, we shame the mudslimes for their Saharian law and we shamr communim for every cruel authoritarian dictatorshim it has created

>>290694

>SJWs should be investigated and blacklisted because they share an ideology with bad people.

SJW should be investigate and blacklisted because THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE!!!

If they were not bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people.

people is free to belive everything they want, the problem with SJWs is that they pretend their religion should be taught in schools as (pseudo)science,

You wouldn't allow a priest to barin wash your child with creationist bullshit, or a mudslime to teach you son that it's ok to abuse women because "muh saharian law" why should anyone tolerate a Marxist brain washing impresionable children with the same cultist mindset that has created amost all of the worst dictatorships in the history of mankind.

Remeber that old saying:

Tell me who you hang out with and i'll tell you who you are.

Why should people tolerate cultist who support the horrible thing monster like Mao, Staling, Pol Pot and many other have done?

Because communism always, ALWAYS!, without ecception ends in a genoside dictatorship and i dare you to post even one example of a commie state that did not have the need to sustain itslef with an authoritarian, intolerant, despotic dictatorship

>>290896

>>290898

Thank you. These guys get it. Five star posts, the both of you.

>>290898

>If they were not bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people.

You realize that's literally SJW logic right there?

"If GamerGate weren't bad people, they wouldn't share a board with bad people like /baph/ or lolicons!"

"If GamerGate weren't bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people who harass women!"

That said, yeah, I wouldn't trust an SJW within 100 yards of my kids. Their ideology IS poisonous and evil.

>>290936

You realize greentext is normally not the anons' original words?

>>290936

Also, you blind faggot, this is what the anon ACTUALLY said

>SJWs should be investigated and blacklisted because THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE!!!

>>290938

Are you an idiot? You greentext to quote someone else's post.

>>288004

>Jay Allen

Did anyone else notice in Milo's "Meet the Progressives Defending Gamergate critic Sarah Nyberg" piece that "Jay Allen" is a fake name?

No Adam Sessler?

>>290876

>Exactly. It's still miss-stating or exaggerating someone's point to make someone look foolish.

No, it's restating your point exactly as you stated it, just with a different target. If it sounds stupid, that's because your point was stupid.

The fact that you can't see the connection really speaks volumes about your mental capacity.

I'll put it in simple terms, use small words, and use a simple outline format, so you can understand:

>You claimed SJWs should be investigated and blacklisted.

>You claimed this because SJWs share an ideology with bad people.

>You claimed that sharing an ideology with bad people is grounds for investigating and blacklisting anyone with the same ideology, because they are by extension bad.

Now let's look at the point I made:

>I pointed out a case where a group of people with the opposite ideology to the one you opposed were unquestionably bad people.

>By your logic, any group of people who share an ideology with bad people should be investigated and blacklisted.

>Thus, anti-Communists should be investigated and blacklisted, because they share an ideology with the bad people I outlined in my example.

There are plenty of anti-Communists who were bad people, HUACanon. Chiang Kai-shek, Duong Van Minh, Park Chung-hee, the Contra rebels, the Mujahideen. Hell, Adolf Hitler was an anti-Communist. By your exact logic, anti-Communists should be investigated and blacklisted because they share an ideology with bad people.

Like I said, EVERY ideology has followers who are bad people. By your exact logic, we should investigate and blacklist every ideology and everyone who follows any political ideology. After all, there were bad people who had the same beliefs.

>>290898

>If they were not bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people!

I hate to break it to you, but like I said previously, there are plenty of bad anti-Communists.

And regardless, if you seriously believe people should have their livelihoods ruined simply because they've been determined to be "bad people" merely because they share an ideology with bad people, I suggest you go back to revolutionary France during the time of terror.

Also, like >>290936 said, you're using SJWs exact logic. You're assuming people are evil because they follow a similar ideology as bad people. By your logic, we're all pedophiles and harassers, just like the SJWs claim we are.

>>>/tumblr/

>>291109

>There are plenty of anti-Communists who were bad people, HUACanon. Chiang Kai-shek, Duong Van Minh, Park Chung-hee, the Contra rebels, the Mujahideen. Hell, Adolf Hitler was an anti-Communist. By your exact logic, anti-Communists should be investigated and blacklisted because they share an ideology with bad people.

>Like I said, EVERY ideology has followers who are bad people. By your exact logic, we should investigate and blacklist every ideology and everyone who follows any political ideology. After all, there were bad people who had the same beliefs.

I didn't say that at all. You're being absolutely ridiculous. You don't know how to engage in an argument. I suggest YOU check your mental capacity. You fucking rube. Kick rocks. I don't have the time nor the patience for ignorant, myopic rubes.

>>291109

Also

>There are plenty of anti-Communists who were bad people, HUACanon. Chiang Kai-shek, Duong Van Minh, Park Chung-hee, the Contra rebels, the Mujahideen. Hell, Adolf Hitler was an anti-Communist. By your exact logic, anti-Communists should be investigated and blacklisted because they share an ideology with bad people.

One has nothing to do with the other, you rube.

>correlation does not equal causation

Keep things apples to apples. Not apples and exploding watermelons.

>>291121

So what is it about anti-Communism that makes bad anti-Communists different than bad Communists?

Are you seriously claiming that anti-Communists are speshul snowflakes that don't have to answer for their bad eggs whereas any other ideology should be held responsible?

Once again,

>>>/tumblr/

>>291129

Show me where.

>>291132

Are you kidding me? That's the core of your argument. It's why you're claiming SJWs should be investigated because of actions committed by other people.

Not once did you mention something modern day SJWs have done. You never even mentioned Wu, or Sarkeesian, or any other SJW. Any time you provided "proof" for why SJWs should be censored, it was always "Stalin was BAD!" "Pol Pot was BAD!" "Communists are BAD!"

If you want to claim people are bad, you should focus on proving that they themselves are bad. Instead, you decided to prove someone was bad by proving someone else was bad.

If you were suggesting that people should be punished for their actions, you would actually point out things that were done by, you know, the ACTUAL PEOPLE you were claiming should be investigated. But you don't. You claim that they should be investigated because something something they think the same way as someone else.

But since you're clearly mentally deficient, I'll humor you. Here's the times when you suggested SJWs should be judged based on the actions of others.

>>289766

>Just like the Communist Party. Communists have killed around 150 million people.

>Yes, there have been SJW terrorists that have killed people over the decades, plus cultural marxism is probably the next biggest threat to humanity after a large wayward asteroid.

>>289790

>The Communist Party is an organisation. Anyway, SJWs are cultural marxists and cultural marxism needs to be utterly destroyed.

>>289842

The entire diatribe about how we need to ruin SJWs lives because of people who lived a half century ago who most SJWs aren't even aware existed.

>>290035

>You couldn't be any more wrong. Communists are murderers; they're not good people.

>Do you deny that communism cost over 100 million lives in the century we left a few years ago? Do you deny that the propaganda and tactics are very similar to that of a lot of communist regimes such as Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia?

>>290214

>You think communists are not murderers regardless?

>I'm gonna tell you a story about another "nice, mild mannered" college professor. He was a professor who studied Marxism at the University of Paris at the Sorbonne. When he returned to his home country he instituted social reform; he transformed his nation. He didn't like the mild capitalism he saw in his homeland because he felt it was "unfair" and wanted the rich to pay "a little bit more.". He wanted the evil bourgeoisie to pay their fair share, and that's how it started. In the end, it turned into a mountain of skulls.

His name was Pol Pot. The country was Cambodia. It is a true story. Watch out where the rhetoric starts; it always ends up with a mountain of skulls.

>I'm going to say it again. Pol Pot was a nice man. (begin yet another diatribe on "POL POT BAD! SJWS BAD TOO!")

>>290898

Here's the most blatant one.

>If they were not bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people.

>If they were not bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people.

>If they were not bad people, they wouldn't share an ideology with bad people.

>Why should people tolerate cultist who support the horrible thing monster like Mao, Staling, Pol Pot and many other have done?

Because communism always, ALWAYS!, without ecception ends in a genoside dictatorship and i dare you to post even one example of a commie state that did not have the need to sustain itslef with an authoritarian, intolerant, despotic dictatorship

Once again, you never once brought up anything that Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian ever did or said. You never even MENTIONED a current SJW. Instead, you brought up Pol Pot, Stalin, etc, and claimed that those people were the reason SJWs should be investigated. If you don't understand how your constant diatribes on "POL POT BAD! THEREFORE, SJWS BAD TOO!" are an explicit example of claiming people should be investigated because they share an ideology with a bad person, then you're being intentionally dense.

Boy Egoraptor and Suzy backed off this as soon as GG grew didn't they

>>290936

>You realize that's literally SJW logic right there?

They have often shown to be masters at the art of projection, almost every bad thing they have said about us can be used to descrive them

>>291109

Of course there are bad people who also oppose bad ideologies, but that still does not change the fact that supporting communism is supporting the millions of murders commited by Mao, Stalin and everyone else

now lets call communism for what it actually is:

The systematic extermination of dissent by any means necesary.

now that we know what communism really is we can claim with full confidence that anyone who aproves of the systematic extermination of dissent by any means necesary is without a shadow of a doubt an evil human being

Of course there would be people who oppose such a thing, and some of them may be bad in other ways, but that cannot be used to say that everyone who opposes the systematic extermination of dissent by any means necesary is a bad person

>>291127

the difference is that there is good anti-communism and bad anti-communism, while pro-communism can only be bad and absolutely never good

>>291137

Learn to read IDs anon, you are not arguing with just one person, all i posted is that communism is completly 100% evil in all it's forms, i never once talked about the LWs or SJWs.

There are plenty of reason to investigate them though, would you trust someone who was raised by a canibal trive to give you a blowjob.

And i stand firm by my statement, anyone who supports any form of Marxist ideology should be black listed from Schools and Universities, so they can never indoctrinate youngsters with the evils of Marxism.

They should still be allowed to join as students though, learning is for everyone, teaching on the other hand should only be for those who are qualified, and people who support genoside cults are most certainly not fit to teach young children

>>291137

Also, the problem is not that they are bad because they share an ideology with a bad person, the problem is that they are bad because they share a BAD ideology.

It's not WHO they share with is WHAT they share that makes them evil

>>291182

Bullshit. You claimed SJWs should be investigated and blacklisted. Don't try to weasel your way out of that.

>>291177

>>291175

Okay, now I know you're a troll.

>>291182

Bullshit. You claimed SJWs should be investigated and blacklisted. Don't try to weasel your way out of that.

>>291177

>>291175

Okay, now I know you're a troll

>>291137

Okay, asking me to do that is like asking me to find a moderate Muslim.

Protip: there aren't any.

On that note, for the sake of argument, let's say that we should not investigate people who say freedom of speech should be limited to spare people's feelings. That we should not investigate Muslims, for example, who say that the Constitution should be replaced with Sharia Law. That SJWs like Jon McIntosh who openly supports Palestine and wishes the destruction of Israel. What do you think the result would be?

It would mean that America would pass a law to get sent to jail just for challenging a radical feminist, just like in Canada. That you could be be subject to lawsuits just because you're being culturally insensitive to Muslims just because you called Mohammed a pedophile. Add to the fact, that in places like the US, they have, in some states and cities, they actually have courts that cater to Sharia Law.

We need to investigate people like Wu, Sarkeesian, and McIntosh the same way we need to investigate Muslims. I'll extrapolate further.

The attempted terrorist plots on our own soil follow a definite pattern. All these acts were carried out by radical Muslims. Shrewd police work requires common sense. If acts of terror repeatedly come from people who practice a certain religion, and, if all these acts are in accord with some twisted notion of their holy book, prudent police work would dictate that we immediately employ national—if not religious—profiling to stop the next terrorist before he or she succeeds.

And this needs to be applied to the radical SJW feminists too. Does that not make sense to you, anon? Is there something wrong with you mentally that you do not understand this?

>>291288

Wanting the constitution replaced with sharia law is protected under the constitution.

Then again, this is America we're talking about. Constitution is a "guideline".

>>291307

>Wanting the constitution replaced with sharia law is protected under the constitution.

But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

You want Sharia Law, go back to Pakistan, or wherever in the Middle East you came from .

CAIR, pls go

Remember to collect every piece of bullshit these people ever said. It's always useful to show their hypocrisy.

>>291494

Right. I forgot to add the time Randi Harper falsely accused Derek Smart of sexually harassing her over the phone, which he refuted by saying "yeah right, have you SEEN my wife?" and posting a pic of his smoking hot wife