/gamergatehq/ - The GamerGate Headquarters

The Baby Boomer liberal establishment knows it's aging, and it's time to pass on their mantle, and their power, to their successors.

Someone, their establishment has decided that SJWs, not normal, loyal progressives like us, are their future. They've chosen censorship and repression, not freedom and liberty.

They've become everything they've claimed to hate.

They were right - don't trust anybody over 40. And don't trust their quislings our age who've they're trying to elevate above us.

I've thought about it, but I don't know where else to go from it. How I understand it is that traditional Christianity, like Catholicism, was traditionally used to control the masses. That started to slip with things like Protestantism and moving away from trusting a central authority to dictate your moral choices and toward a "personal relationship with god"

However, the last few generations had a lot of people not only leave those more authoritarian versions of Christianity, but just stop believing in general. This left a big vacuum, because people are generally weak and need something to tell them what to do. It got somewhat replaced with materialism, but you can't get proper behaviors out of people with just materialism.

I believe the whole social justice thing is a means to take back people's wills by forcing them back into a situation where you have leaders who are in a position where they dictate right and wrong and can not be questioned. Not only is a step back from free thinking philosophical movements, but it's a step back from modern Christianity where people are encouraged to study the Bible on their own and draw their own conclusions.

It should be obvious why they want this. It's a very convenient way of controlling the masses. Look at how well SJWs flock to defend things like immigration. And if you disagree, you're a racist/xenophobe/sinner/etc.

>>316293

For a point, the formation of the current opinion depends on simple information economics. A lot of opinion is formed by the use of the media.

Media now seems to be free. We no longer have to pay to read most of our news, strange isn't it? How then the market sustains itself? The client of the media is not you, is the advertisers. They pay for page views and the more page views they get the more they pay.

Now, how you get more page views to your news page? Making informed news take time and uses more space, which means that you get to publish less and you'll probably use a wall of text, and that get's paid by a single ad per viewer. What if you decide to instead publish a shorter story? Or maybe do it in more parts? Then one page might become 3 or 4. What if you do it before confirming your sources? If you think that using poor sources might affect the reputation of a site, look no further than Gawker. So i can make a story about something using just rumors, then another confirming the rumors or adding new info, then another one with somebody denying the info, then an opinion piece, another update of the original story, and so on. Suddenly i have lot of pages full of articles taken from a single story poorly researched and i get to display ads for each post.

If the reality factor of the story is not that important what makes an article successful? Outrage, emotional content. Something that motivates people to post, to share the article, to get angry, to laugh. You don't need critical thinkers, that's not where the money is. You need hordes of emotional readers affected by the thing you wrote that will act before reading the full story, some even before reading past the title. You pretend to catter to atheists? Scientists? Philosophers? Fuck them, too specific to get into it, too slow. forty something people? They have their own experience, and are not so internet savy. The key to promote your content is on that group of young millenials raised on a time of economic growth who are the primary users of the internet.

And that's where SJWs enter in the game. I present you the outraged horde of our time. You take something simple (racism, sexism, violence, things that most of us would be naturally against of) and you distort it, manage it, transform it to suit your needs. Of course, you are just a reporter, you are just making a report of the information you have. I think most bloggers won't be even aware of how they are manipulating the info they receive, and probably they think that whatever they are doing is for a good cause. The readers don't have the ability to go meta, check the facts or use critical thinking and most of them might consider enough to see a bunch of links on the bottom of the page to believe the story is fact-checked. The attention span is gone but the info adquired remains, and they "feel" like it's true.

The heuristics of the mind make the rest possible. Suddenly, a reporter gets lots of views for it's post. And therefore the topic of the writing, the way of reporting it seems the correct form of doing it. With a mass of reporters waiting to fill your position, you better keep showing that you are worth it. But you need to be quick to report, so anything remotely important on the political scale for the planet might not be worth it, gossip, on the other hand… The reader also gets outraged, suddenly more and more opinion pieces are thrown to him/her/zerg/bazinga. It's almost like there's an epidemic of these news. Shit, better share it, I MUST DO SOMETHING. But the harsh reality is that they are not making shit. They only shared some stupid post about a first world problem that confirmates their own acquired biases.

>>316299

Good points. I didn't even think of it like that. It also explains why a lot of social justice leaders don't practice what they preach. And in reality, social justice is an ideal tool for a blogger who's first priority is ad revenue. It more or less gives them emotional click bait. And they can hide behind the defence that everyone who disagrees with them is some sort of newspeak term. Not to mention I agree with everything else you said.

That also explains why it's so prolific. It's encouraged to be spread via media because of the emotional bullshit attached. And the more followers they have, the more clicks they get.

But what do you do? If you don't do it, you get blown away by amount of content and clicks by the ones that do.

>>316299

But is really worthless? Yes. The action of sharing something on social media is worthless. You my friend are not important. You might be informed on a lot of topics concerning you, but you are certainly not the one that will go on TV arguing on whether you like certain topic or not. You are just a consumer. The idea of "creating awareness" is absurd because everyone already thinks the same. Is just the silence of the masses wasting their worthless time thinking they change the world for sharing the last post of Salon. Want to see what sharing makes? Is just more mindless advertising. Just check Protein World to see how much the outrage serves the outraged to their purpose.

SJWs are the result of the massive access to immediate information without the proper education to receive it and consider it's value. After years of cooking and eating their fallacies on the shadows of niche sites, they made the mistake of believing the support of the media was equal to the support of the masses, and they brought themselves to the spotlight, rushing to a space of diversity of opinions without considering the implications of it. The actual crisis of SJWism is the result of the external refutation of their beliefs. The ideological structure was attacked from all possible sides including real bigots, skeptics, religious fundamentalists, outraged minorities and those affected by the consequences of their speech. The nature of the public social media made this crisis so massive. Their lack of self-criticism, the poor ability of many of the attackers to build a civilized discussion, and the many angles of the attack forced them to hold their precious beliefs and shut down any possibility of disagreement, that or risking have their identity, their vision of the world destroyed from any possible angle. Of course they got obnoxious, defensive and loud. What does this means to media? More posts, more views, more clicks. We are on a war, any ammunition serves as long as it confirms my point. Repeat, share, repeat the same topic. Here are 20 something bad things men do. Here are these bad phrases against women that tell me my ideas are ok. The world is bad, listen and believe me, don't question, can't you see how much pressure am i into? The violence they receive is real on their minds. They really feel attacked.

The only solution here is keep going on. The SJW ideology whether is a well constructed structure (is not) must be challenged again and again and again and again. Gamergate was just a spark on this big crush of different ideas. GG itself cannot survive and probably will never be as massive to deserve a big post on the NY Times since it scope is too narrow. You must care of videogames, and also of journalism of videogames and also on ethics on the journalism of the videogame market. The reason GG got so big is because it served as a beacon from where to talk and organize against the PC culture and the SJW authoritarianism. Many told themselves this was important to them, after all, i play videogames too, somehow this anger is justified. But let's face it, the outrage is bigger than the GG meme.

The costs of stopping are just too big. With no challenge from the outside, the SJW group will continue believing blindly they are right, while recruiting more and more who will also see the illusion of a pattern of soggy knees in the first world. I didn't even touched the surface of how politics interact with all this mess, but don't think of politic groups as the masterminds of all this madness. After all, most of them read the same news.

>>316303

>Being obvious, of course this is why is important the mails for the advertisers

You got it. Trying to prove a mindless mass how you are right is a waste of effort and will never reach so far. Who the fuck is going to share a piece of opinion that makes 'em feel uncomfortable? That's not how an echo chamber works.

>We need a site, a place where voice can be spread, twitter is dead, and YouTube tends to be dangerous

>Or maybe an actual newspaper?

>…. To spread and gain numbers again, but it cant be mindless, or we will be in the current state for ever

You don't create national news or public ideas from a single outlet, not even if that outlet is Breitbart. There are exceptions like the "college cuddling" articles made by few sites, but is not a sure rule to get attention. Besides, nobody is waiting for you to come and tell them why we need a group of gamers to talk about SJWism.

A meme spread not by being used once so well that everyone suddenly agrees with it. Is repetition what creates authority. If a lot of outlets are reporting the same thing, then some truth must be on it, right? Just search for minor news sites and create the first sparks. Then you can inform bigger news sites and let the fire rise.

>>316301

>That also explains why it's so prolific. It's encouraged to be spread via media because of the emotional bullshit attached. And the more followers they have, the more clicks they get.

>But what do you do? If you don't do it, you get blown away by amount of content and clicks by the ones that do.

The scary part of this system is that if your voice is big enough, news will be forced to report it. As i said earlier, the truth factor is not so important. The system can be abused by creating the notion of a happening where there is nothing, and this can be used to create news as much as to spread false intel. Just create a content that can be used to generate outrage and the rest will follow. How about the fall of twitter? How about who is responsible for it? How about the rise of SJW blockbots?

>>316307

As you see, something that tries to anger might get results even when it lacks content. For a troll, attention is a must. Ignoring it is the worst treatment it can receive.

>>316268

One last thing OP. The need for a central operator is typical. You see a series of events on a really complex reality that you cannot possibly understand, but somehow you manage to see a pattern, real or not on all this sensorial mess. I'm not blaming you, but merely noting that this is the same mindset that predates religious thinking like that coming from SJWism and… well, religions.

But a central organizer is needed when the system cannot regulate itself, and it's expensive and hard to hide. You can expect a puppet master on communist societies and dictatorships, where the order must be maintained at any cost, the order and functioning of society is truly unbalanced.

That's the beauty of capitalism, independent of the different theories behind it. It tends to balance itself using something as simple as price, stock and demand. The implications to society are an addendum. With a dictatorship you need constant work to keep everything on the balance you need. With capitalism you just need to understand how money flows, and make minor fixes here and there to make the market move (for an example, just see the origins of the current oil crisis). Find how to move the money and the rest will follow.

Others are already doing it.

>>316302

We stop we lose

Then again we need to focus on their profit sources

The actors of this mess, can only be helpful when ruining their image, but bad publicity is also publicity

The twitter front stopped being careful some time ago

>>316268

>>316268

With everything going on, a singular group/individual pulling strings behind the scenes would actually be the best-case scenario because it's easier to target against a movement that's a definable, definite and tangible entity.

It's the same as the beginning when the media branded Gamergate as a tangible and definable hate group to be reviled since it's easier to go against an entity that they can all agree is "bad".

IMO, it's all just a bad case of a combination of certain amounts of groupthink, good intentions, PR and marketing.

>>316356

>We don't have the full information to understand it fully or at least better

Sure, you and i will never be able to understand it all. We are humans with brains coming from a long line of evolution. I'm not arguing against the need of explanations. I'm just trying to bring the point that is good to be meta with our thinking.

>Capitalism by its natural way of operating will just break the thing?

No if you don't use your influence. GG is a mob. That has advantages and limitations. It should try take the most from it's advantages.

>It should, but for what i see the "central organizer" or someone is trying to change the market itself

What i argue is that the strings used by this central organizer (being that a group, the gates foundation, the omnipotent jew, or the illuminati mountain dewritos) would exist only because the market allows it. Follow the money is a good advice since money is an incredible secondary reinforcer. But that also makes possible to manage the same strings if you have the same power level and influence.

A central organizer is too easy a target, but too hard to find, and would bring only circumstantial evidence and lots of false flags. While searching it is a big objective to anyone that believes it. But too difficult to resolve in the short term.

Money on the other side is simple, you watch how it works, who wants it and then you cut one of the lines that allow that movement. And suddenly, advertisers afraid of the PR damage make your job and stop the movement of the beast you are fighting.

Bump

http://archive.is/4qmE6

>>316428

>yes, I'm not saying we should, or can, remove them but hitting a head is more effective than hitting a toe

Before GG the some SJWs spokepersons were challenged on public. Look how it worked.

Get rid of the head of the movement and you get a martyr and a cause to grow the movement.

Get rid of it's reputation, and the movement will disolve itself on the resulting confusion.

Remember this cultural war is based on the distribution of information, in great way your weapons are memetic. I can understand that the LWs might not be the "heads" of the ideology and is perfectly possibly to have someone or a group working behind the curtains to keep the current state of things, but we achieve nothing by taking the responsible of the discourse if the megaphones that are repeating are in auto-pilot.

Think for a moment, what would happen if these hypothetical puppetmasters suddenly would decide that media now must report against SJWism? Hell would break loose, since they still depend on the public support of the many. So, winning the many is the key, but that goes beyond the scope of the 'Ethics' meme.

>>316564

Exactly. This entire SJW rot revolves around virtue signaling. If you score hits against the leaders you need to do it in a way that damages their reputation. Otherwise they just use you as a way to enhance their prestige. The SJW shit is flavour of the month moralism for normies to feel superior to others. You can swap it out with any other pop politics fad like Free Tibet, Save The Whale, Stop The Genocide In Darfur where fucktards make a lot of noise to let other people know how morally superior they are without actually doing anything to address what they're rabbling about. Take away their ability to virtue signal here and they'll flee to the next fad that props up their ego.

>>316268

So are we going to do something or circlejerk some more?

>>316565

Sadly SJWs just function as normal human beings who are unaware of the failures of their own heuristics and how it paints their world vision. Many here might want to "give them a lesson" or win an argument through hard evidence and discussion, but the masses are not there to be rational and think for themselves. You don't get freedom of opinion when you are on a mob. A book i would recommend is You Are Not So Smart from David McRaney.

The SJW movement was successful in part for the lack of learned critical thinking, instead lots of biases, the media feeding them into a sharpshooter fallacy state and a good circular unfalsifiable narrative drove them to the shitfest now we have to stand against.

Fighting against the stupidity of the average internet normalfag is fighting against millions of years of evolution designed to keep primates aware of their immediate surroundings and nothing else. The problem starts when you put that evolved primate on the internet era where the information is just too much, and i say that without mentioning how confirmation bias works and the short attention window the normal user has. Changing their mindset by arguing is not possible on a big scale. A few wins here and there are possible, but most lack the ability to grasp and discuss a contradicting opinion.

You end needing a better narrative to feed them. Instead of waiting for their enlightenment, you must push your idea to their soft heads. For that some context is needed. The "cuddling of campuses" articles worked because it confirmed ideas previously assumed by a part of the population. If those articles proposed something different or an idea too transgressive it would not matter how much evidence they had, they would be ignored. After all, who wants to feel uncomfortable? The internet is for fun! and porn of course…

As with modern feminism, the idea just needs a space to enter. Nobody likes sexism right? Well, if you don't want to be sexist, or racist, or a bigot, please follow these simple instructions.

But people also like their own freedom. The internet surveillance state is possible just because is too big and not really palpable. But when you make the lack of freedom tangible, the story changes a lot. I wonder how to transfer the fears of many of an Orwellian future coming by the hand of political correctness.

>>316580

Sure, be our guide leader.

Part of me just hold the faint hope that at eventually this whole 'progressive' bullshit will eventually consume itself inside-out. The thing is, it already does but not enough to kill it. The thing is, look at the progressive stack: utterly impossible to make functionnal in any shape or form. Identity politics function entirely on outrage and othering. Eventually, hopefully, will come a time when they will eat each others in a big (stupid) orgy of hatred as they shout "I'M MORE OPRESSED!" at each others as the women fight the gay who are both attacked for being white by the blacks and so on and so forth. That might happen as all the elements for it to happen are there.

What worry me is that western society will not survive that all-out retard brawl.

Probably the next generation of BCCI http://www.apfn.org/apfn/BCCI.htm

tl;dr: a joint Saudi/Pakistani bank attracted the world's drug dealers, bought off hundreds of politicians including Bush and Clinton, ignored all the laws, almost nobody was punished. Don't think they didn't do it again.

Just ask who benefits from "feminists" who shout down any criticism of Islam's oppression of women.

>>316909

Vid related.

iyuiuyuy