>>310148
>1) We don't have the manpower or resources and utterly take over the "mainstream"
We do not need to take it over - merely seize it's monopolization of public opinion away from them. A "little man" could do it. It's already begun with alternative media, though at the moment it's weak.
>Imageboards have stigma … so a –movement– consumer revolt such as GG is difficult to conduct if it isn't underground.
Yes, forced containerization by an opponent is a problem. But there are two sides to containment I believe. I call the latter side, that you use to your advantage; "stratification". Keep your shit separated. This is what Rupert Murdoch tries to do. This is what our enemies try to do. Hell, this is what your sissy board owner tried to do. We both know that the articles they publish are written by degenerate channers and Something Awful fags. But it's published under the names of others. Under the more "acceptable" amongst them. Giving their bullshit validity. "Wikipedia editors are not ultra left-wing liberals" they say. "Redditors are not channers" we say. Yet we both know about the cross-posters.
>Furthermore, our efforts are even hampered further by the fact that we've been accused of harassing SJWs
>tldr "they have power that we do not" "on the back foot" etc.
I know that. There's fucking billions of dollars of investment against a bunch of NEETs who play video games. But I'll say this: Alfred the Great won over the court of public opinion and banished the Viking rulers from England, making it into a (semi-)unified Saxon country. This was some time *after* he'd hid beneath a tree to avoid having his head cleaved by Vikings: not what I would call "a position of strength".
History has seen it done before. You don't even have to be a strong or remarkable man. That's what's struck me the most lately.
>So on one hand, we've been unfairly stripped of all credibility in the eyes of the media, so we have little chance making an impact on the mainstream. On the other hand, we've been simultaneously preventing ourselves from resorting to driving out the opposition by any means possible, so we really can't even maximize our potential as an "underground" or "anonymous" movement.
>In essence, we've been put into a situation where we're trying to play by the rules that have been set by our enemies, while at the same time our enemies aren't even bothering to follow them themselves. We can't even do shit as a good guy or as a bad guy in these circumstances.
Our enemies use stratification. We should too. Those who want to play dirty under their own banner - those who want to be good do so under something else.
>So what do Americafags and non-Americafags here have in common the most? A love of video games, that's what. It's the only thing we can reliably unite under to make a difference. It's only when we start opening up to the idea of "expanding" that we start attracting assholes who couldn't care less about vidya try to co-opt GG and try to use us as their own personal political army (see also: seattle4truth).
>Really, our main issue is that we've been losing focus.
I disagree and think that it's ALL relevant to us, but I'll best explain it by explaining my idea to you. You know how we've got gitgud.io, and deepfreeze.it and gamergatewiki and devdex? All are essentially wikis for different things. Why? What's the point I've often asked. My idea is to unify ethics from all of journalism, from all of media, film, music, games… a wikileaks of poor practice in the media if you will. What Press Gazette does, except user-contributed.
Next time when you try to tell cynical normies that the mainstream media is lying to us all, you'll have a resource to back it up. This is a way to fight the newspapers. Without replacing them. Without manipulating them from within. They either adapt or perish, to this new environment of public scrutiny. Besides shit-slinging and shaming them, it's otherwise an ethical project.