Not Even The Supreme Court Can Stop #GamerGate Now

While so far GamerGate hasn’t achieved any dramatic victories, it certainly did manage to thoroughly dismantle the mainstream narrative and perception of gamers as “misogynist, neckbeard basement dwellers.” This happened through a series of small battles, fought via Twitter and other social networks on a daily basis. Every time there was an attack on GamerGate, either with feeble hashtags or pathetic parodies, GamerGate supporters responded promptly and curbstomped the SJWs.

“Don’t sealion me, bro”

There have been numerous attempts to label GamerGate supporters as online terrorists who harass and verbally abuse poor SJWs that dare to criticize their culture. The case is actually quite the opposite. GamerGaters have been nothing but patient, calm, and collected when dealing with such hysteric harpies as Leigh Alexander. Of course, these virtues are flaws in the eyes of SJWs, as you are about to see.

One example of a failed SJW reaction was when a certain David Malki drew a comic which brought us the wonderful term “sealioning.”


Note the text spoken by the sea lion. This is the type of behavior that SJWs see as an insult in itself. But what do sea lions have to do with GamerGate, SJWs, video games or anything at all? Why sea lions? Nobody knows and trying to delve into the mind of a SJW is a dangerous journey. Sealioning apparently means being immovably polite and respectful in dealing with SJWs to the point that they cannot muster the strength to play the victim card at all.

In any case, the retaliation to that comic by GamerGaters was swift and brutal. It consisted of funding an actual WWF sea lion (christened “Ethics”) and its habitat (christened “Games Journalism”) with $5,000. In the end, every GamerGater can claim it is about “ethics in games journalism.”

sea lion ethics

Stop weaponizing charity, GamerGate!

Beastiality fantasies

Combine “sealioning” with “dogpiling” and you can get potentially the most retarded sentences in the history of English language. For SJWs, however, those two words represent very real and frightening possibilities and they utter them with complete seriousness. When one of their ilk posts a hateful, slandering article on GamerGate, they risk being challenged, asked for sources or to clarify their position (sealioning) en masse (dogpiling). Because these challengers can be minorities, transsexual, gay or handicapped, SJWs can no longer resort to cries of “patriarchy!” to dismiss them summarily.

The above comic also shows succinctly how SJWs think and operate. SJWs will publicly criticize, demean, shame and blame anyone and anything but nobody can dare criticize them, no matter how politely. Responding in kind to SJWs’ hate speeches can and probably will end up with critic being the one called a harasser or a stalker. These labels would mean nothing if it weren’t for their massive network of allies on blogs and in mainstream press, ready to smear people’s names and ruin their careers. There is also the latest push to criminalize “hate speech” over the internet, coming from none other than the Supreme Court of the United States.

Skeletons in my newsfeed

In 2010, a certain Anthony Douglas Elonis was sentenced to 44 months in jail for making threats to his wife over Facebook. Of course, nobody considered that the cause of these threats might have something to do with her running away with their two children prior to that. And, as we all know, there is no reason to hit a woman. Anthony ended up serving three years for his Facebook posts, but the interesting part is that the Supreme Court ended up discussing when an online threat is credible.

In short, a credible threat involves “a reasonable person thinking that the threat is real.” But how do you apply this same standard to the Internet? Reasonable person? Thinking? Online? Also, while making threats in real life means risking a punch to the face, when online everyone gets the aptly named “digital courage.” Everyone is a keyboard Rambo and social networks are specifically designed to make creating and sharing content as easy as possible. It was also noted by the judges that the same “threat is real” standard that was applied in Anthony’s case could be applied to any of Eminem’s lyrics, meaning that any teenager quoting Eminem on Facebook could end up in trouble.

The problem is that nobody discussed the line after which online threats become criminal. Should there be such a line? Aren’t we supposed to be judged by our actions and not our words? Supreme Court judges are also hilariously out of touch with online culture of smack talking, which is especially vibrant in video games. Are they even capable of making such a ruling?

The US government is pushing for the standard for an online threat to be changed to “someone to be reasonably put into fear,” meaning that causing bad feelings and angst could actually become illegal. If that does become a federal law, trolls will have a field day and go an extra mile just to cause epic butthurt.

You can thank gamers

Finally, we come back to GamerGate. While there have been certain homebrew efforts to block GamerGate supporters, they all failed spectacularly. But what happens if causing fear online does become a criminal activity? What if Twitter or Facebook decide to help the government and preemptively ban “hateful speech,” including any mention of GamerGate? The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court makes a small concession to the SJWs and thus continues the slow decline of the freedom of speech in the US.

GamerGate has been called dead hundreds of times over the last three months, but it simply refuses to die. It’s as if GamerGate supporters are actual, passionate people who want higher standards in journalism. Over time, GamerGate supporters uncovered massive corruption in the gaming press, uprooting SJW tentacles buried deep in our society. More fun revelations are sure to come. Stay tuned.

Read More: Geordie Tait’s Epic Meltdown Shows Who #GamerGate Is Up Against

52 thoughts on “Not Even The Supreme Court Can Stop #GamerGate Now”

  1. I think long term, we will all need to learn not to engage SJWs in debate, and simply disregard their values. They do not adhere to any reason or logic, so why waste your precious time and energy? If one calls you out for being homophobic/misogynist, don’t argue or debate. Simply own it and watch them implode. The more people owning these contextually “bad” phrases, the better. They will not be so greatly feared.

    1. I want to agree completely, but due to legal constraints the look the other way argument seems implausible. The fact that a whiny little girl of 27 could affect your life and freedoms as aa 38 year old man is jarring to say the least. If anything the cycle seems to lean in this direction: women cry freedom, minorities follow behind as do effeminate white males. Women naturally look to men to lead but the men nearest them are too busy pandering to be leaders. The women get restless and seek out the men outside the circle, but the men on the outside are the minority of the populace. So while society loses liberties under the guise of justice, weak men destroy the countries liberties leaving a hole for power. Nature abhors a vacuum, so who will fill the hole?
      The fight is here and must be dealt with before the vacuum is filled by any controlling agent, because rest assured, the police state for corporation rule is almost on us. Before it gets to that stage, maybe we can hand a beating to some of the men in this feminist party. Maybe break a few white knights along the way.

    2. I would also take the next logical step of setting up communities and making sure the people are in place to keep the SJWs out or boot them out the moment they try to start infesting their ideology into it. The good thing about being online is everything is or can be decentralized. The consequence of GamerGate is that now people are going to be getting their gaming news from more trustworthy sources who have more in common with gamers than the gaming journalists do. BOTH youtubers and upstarts who are more focused on discussing games rather than politics and are willing to set up boundaries against political correctness. Reaxxion is one example, and I’m sure more will crop up in due time.

    3. Big mistake. That is exactly how the feminazis came to own the good ol’ USA. Men simply ignored them in the beginning….and this allowed them to shape the conversation and take over our country, one institution at a time: education, family, laws, and workplace. Now, they are grabbing to take over our play space through incursions into the NFL, and this GamerGate issue.
      The best way to defeat this bully called feminism is to engage it at every turn. For every complaint they make we should make three or more; for every statement, we should make five. That is how to silence them and overwhelm them. Feminism is a zombie; you must kill it again and again and again.

      1. And go after the white knights and mangina enablers mercilessly. Remember that feminists do not stand up for white knights and manginas when they come under attack, heck, some even join in.

        1. Yep. White knights and manginas are the single biggest problem at the moment. Deal with them and the so-called feminists won’t have their big strong men to support them, and they will fall.

        2. “White knights and manginas are the single biggest problem”
          And why is that?
          Because they seek female attention/validation.
          And why do they seek that?
          We all know the answer.
          So providing these beta/omega men with a viable sexual option to sucking up to land whales (usually feminists) is vital.
          Which is why VR sex is so important.
          Which is probably the real reason that feminists want to take over games so badly.

        3. We blame 3 things 1-feminism 2-feminazy 3-white knight. I think that we do not have 3 enemy but we do have 2. The feminazy and worse, the white knight. Some feminist really want fairness, those are not our enemy.

        1. I’m an Australian and I can tell you, we do score extremely high on the beta male country ranking. Seemingly all society is based around pleasing the ‘women’ here. Even the media (run by the left) actively attack any right or central-right political parties and ideologies. As you can clearly see. Can’t wait to move out of this shit hole

        2. Once upon a time I fancied spending what would be my winters here in NY in the Australian summer.
          Then you started requiring cyclists to wear styrofoam colanders on their heads and I scratched it off as having fallen to the Nerf Ladies.
          Oh well, at least there’s still New Zealand. Oh. Wait. Never mind.

      2. Strong points. It is however, becoming increasingly difficult to speak out against SJWs, as they will simply (and loudly) claim you’re a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a chauvinist, an oppressive sexist (really depends on which cause they happen to be championing at the time). They don’t need to provide logic to the public, the mainstream media just backs them relentlessly and the public are convinced.

        1. …..and therein lies the root of the problem; the mainstream media is an inexhaustible mouthpiece for the SJWs. Maybe deeper inroads could be made if we stopped paying to watch their films and stopped buying the products that sponsor the television shows and news programs. If their cash is cut off they might just take a second look at what they support.

        2. Thing is we’re almost there.
          I don’t know about you but I can’t remember the last time I went to the theatre.
          Cable TV is a joke.
          Youtube is about it for me.

        3. And therefore the key is not caring about being a bigot
          Not actual bigotry of course, but bigotry in the western world is usually nothing, and more likely just a sign of a thinking person

        4. So, what is the alternative? Give up, and be shamed into silence? No, no, no! It is time to use the feminist’s methods against them, and refuse to back down, even when called names. That was how the feminists changed public discourse in their favor. That was how homosexuals did it. That is how we should do it. We must never back down.

        5. My original comment said to own those negative titles when called them. Not to shrivel and disappear.
          Be all like “yeah I’m what YOU would call a misogynist, deal” etc.

        6. Agreed. Then, after owning that badge, go after her harebrained arguments, and dismantle them with impunity, leaving her speechless. She will learn a thing or two, and forever remember to warn her friends that better get their facts straight, because “those manosphere misogynists out there are horrible; they won’t let you get away with anything”.

      3. That’s not really what he meant
        Reframing is the best instrument against leftism because leftism is based entirely on feelings
        Ergo, one should speak as though none of rhetoric the left has built up over the last century even exists
        Completely disregard values like equality, tolerance, compassion etc in favor of pure, unadulterated truth – if they’re offended it means you’re doing it right

      4. Don’t mix things. Feminism is not that bad. It serve a purpose. The problem is the feminazy. Feminazy are the cancer that is eating America economic and social foundations. Thore angry ugly woman trash must be arrested.

        1. Feminism is THAT bad. Feminism ceased to be useful since the women got the vote. Since that time, it has degenerated into a selfish, woman-only-matters movement.
          Even, looking at it, it was not good that women got the vote. Rather, votes should have been reserved for families, since any good country depends on a functional family. That is likely to bring together both men and women, unlike the feminist movement which actually tears them apart.

    4. Most people don’t adhere to logic. If you examine how effective propaganda is with the average human, you’d understand why allowing the SJWs to rail unopposed will have disastrous consequences.

    5. ignoring them does not work. a backhand across the mouth or a public flogging works wonders.
      You are right in that engaging them in debate lends validity to their views. Now is the time to be brutal in dealing with stupidity.

    6. If you must engage, do it for an audience. Humiliate them by exposing them.
      Hell, let them talk the whole time and you should be fine, always ask for citations of their claims of course

    7. Agree and amplify subtly with these retards. Make them look even more foolish, without them realizing it, so the rest of the world can see their folly.

      1. If you believe saying “yes, I am a misogynist, what of it?” in the face of a SJW is an example of pussying out, then yes. That’s exactly what I meant.
        If you re-read my comment, you’ll see that I said own it. Own these taboo words and they will no longer be so feared.

        1. And this might not be as difficult to do as it seems.
          You start with family and small communities and work outward from there.
          It’s one thing to hear something on TV or read it in the paper BUT if the living breathing people in their lives are saying something else then who’s word’s gonna carry more weight?
          I believe Jack Donovan spoke something similar one time…or maybe two.

    8. There’s something fundamentally retarded about your average social justice subhuman
      Somebody was going on and on about how Gamergate was transphobic, and I just couldn’t bring myself to see that anybody there cared about transphobia, so their entire issue becomes almost like a joke, a desperate but failed attempt at attack

    9. How about always replying third person. “This person has said X but the evidence suggests Y”. Never reply directly to them in the second person.
      This only makes sense when there is a third party watching the exchange, which is kinda the point. There is no reason whatever to discuss anything with these people if there aren’t other people listening in who might be sane.

      1. “There is no reason whatever to discuss anything with these people if there aren’t other people listening in who might be sane.”
        Agreed. Definitely along the lines of what I was trying to say. You will burst a blood vessel in your eye before you talk sense into these people.

  2. That SCOTUS case is gynocentrism in action, it’s clear that there is no justification for suppressing speech, but the judges are scrambling to find one by any means necessary: a woman is upset, something must be done.

    1. No, that’s not how the appeals system works. Mr. Elonis was already convicted. The Supreme Court didn’t need to do anything for him to be punished. The Court took the case because at least 4 justices wanted to hear the case, most likely because they think the lower courts messed up. There are probably 4 or more justices who are looking to UNDO the “justification for suppressing speech.” They need to find a fifth vote to on the Court to prevail.

      1. Isn’t the point usually to resolve conflicts among lower appeals courts? So it could be that they are using the case as an opportunity to make prison terms for speech that hurts girls’ feelings standard. Agreeing to hear the case could also mean nothing, maybe a couple were just having a “senior moment” and got confused

        1. That is what typically motivates the court to accept a case. But they also generally take up cases they plan on reversing. If there is no circuit split, and they take the case, odds are 67-75% that its going to get reversed.

  3. You don’t need to link us to a definition of the word curbstomp you retard. Your bio is trash, look at other popular bios. Otherwise a decent and relevant article.

      1. Sure there is. Entryist trash HAVE to find something personal to insult a writer about when they don’t have any actual, relevant disagreement that would hold water.
        This ‘I’m on to you’ bitch is just looking to feel validated when he gets banned. That’s plenty of reason for it. Maybe not a GOOD reason, but certainly a reason.

        1. I think you are here to make drama and nothing else. In all likelihood, you read the article, could not find a rock solid point of disagreement to use to draw attention to yourself, and proceeded to make an issue out of an insignificant detail. Nice work!

      2. I ain’t even mad, but it was a pretty potato move of the guy. Luckily he has a white knight to stick up for him :’) Have a good day, you cute little fuccboi

  4. I saw a mini feature on the Golden Dawn. God damn, SJWs are so incompetent.
    I would love to pit them against the GD.

    1. Offense is better than reactionary defense
      Don’t wait for the left to start flapping their mouths, but rather seek out left wing groups and persecute them even if they’re not doing anything, because the very existence of equalism is the problem in the first place

      1. They are often very difficult to root out, and a superb command of rhetoric makes any assault on a left group seem like an assault on whatever group they have parasitised.
        If you assault feminists, you assault ‘women’. If you assault anti-gamergate, you assault ‘gamers’. If you assault egalitarians, you assault ‘humanists’.
        It’s not impossible, but usually assaulters become enmired in explanations of the difference between a woman and a femasupremacist that stalls their attacks.

        1. And this is because the libtards keep redefining the vocabulary.
          I found the best way to do it was to claim that said entity was under the control of feminism.
          For example I got into a church forum one time and told them straight out that our church was under the control of feminism. When they derided that I responded that it could be proved by asking church class groups what Paul meant when he told women to submit to their husbands, sit back and watch the hilarity ensue.
          Well one sucker took the bait and flipped through so much in the way of mental gymnastics to try and make out that I was so wrong on how I interpreted the submission thing.
          I was able then to simply respond – You sir, are evidence of the truth of my claim that the church is under the control of feminism.
          The moderators at that point locked the thread.
          The point is – identify the group that feminism has infected, tell the infected group that they have been infected, provide the evidence that proves it, watch some in the group respond in said feministic manner, tell them that they are proof of such feministic infection.
          Feminists and other social libtards rely on two fangs to keep control of the narrative. Demonisation, and when that doesn’t work, censorship. If you can neutralise demonisation and you haven’t violated their TOC’s then they’ve lost control. Once they’ve lost control then demonise at will. They will hate that and hopefully lose a good night’s sleep over it.

  5. I have a right to hate. And I have a right to speech. And I have a right to hate speech.

  6. SJWs want to include everyone. Because of that they have to exclude anyone who does not want to include everyone.
    To be able to decide who to exclude, they have to get the consent of the lower-tier SJW masses. This consent is only given to the SJWs who win the race to be the one promoting the most social and most just social justice.
    To promote the highest standards of social justice means that SJWs with lower standards have to be denigrated, because they have lower standards, e.g. believe things like being fat is unhealthy, or females and males are different.
    this is why they struggle to find a single meaningful consent. because they compete about who is the most just and most inclusive and most do-gooder.
    and this is also why already semi-intelligent bigots are able to gather masses of SJWs under easy enemy concepts like cis white patriarchs who make an easy target. racism is already occupied, religion is occupied… but hallucinating a patriarchy and constructing criteria to put people in this category is easy, because the category is complete fake…
    society will collapse by this. i wonder if an ex SJW will choose to starve and refuse to milk a cow after the nuclear holocaust because of sexual harrassment of a carbon based organism and milk as a healthy beverage promotes fat shaming…

Comments are closed.