TeapotCavalry
Master Poster
This kind of thing confuses me.
You seem to want to be able to represent gamergate at will, or not represent it at will.
You seem to want to be able to speak for gamergate at will, or not speak for gamergate at will.
You seem to want to be able to declare exactly what gamergate is and isn't at will, but also to deny anyone else's claims about gamergate, because gamergate is everything and nothing.
I alone do not represent gamergate, I've said this before many times. Check what the majority do in KiA, if that is still unclear. I'm reporting what I'm seeing gamergaters as a whole do and want, not what I personally do and want.
You seem to want to be able to redefine gamergate's history completely at will, so the discreditable origins and actions of the gamergate community somehow never manage to count against it, because it's different now, or it's someone else, or you never saw me do it, and you can't prove anything, and it could have been a false flag!
No need to redefine the history. Everything's archived and plain to see to anyone willing to take a look. The facts are there, I'm merely following them. You and other anti-GG folks have been asserting things that simply are not true about the history of GG, obvious by the consistent lack of evidence to back up your claims.
Do you see why people tend to think gamergaters are, as a group, dishonest actors who have no interest in open discussion, and who are just repeating whatever talking points they think will best serve them at just that time?
Remind me again, who's blocking who, who never has anyone pro-GG stating their position in their articles, who never accept invites to public debates, who disable comments, who delete threads after threads of discussion, who b a n people from expos because of political disagreement?
And we're the ones not willing to discuss?
Wow.
Last edited: