Current Events > Remember Gamergate?

(+) Yeah! (+)

PraetorXyn posted...

What point? You derailed a civil discussion into an irrelevant personal attack on me claiming I said women exposing their bodies is a bad thing, which I didnt and would never say. I think they should be able to go around topless if they want to, what idiot would oppose them doing so?

This honestly says more about you than it does me.

Since you seem incapable of nuance and context, Ill spell it out for you: that quote you pulled was me saying a lot of men are pathetic.

did i? seems like youre doing a lot of heavy lifting on this argument and replying to things i never actually said. huh

its almost like i was purposely vague to see how you would respond, and you took the bait better than i ever would have hoped.

huh indeed

Ferroseed posted...

did i? seems like youre doing a lot of heavy lifting on this argument and replying to things i never actually said. huh

its almost like i was purposely vague to see how you would respond, and you took the bait better than i ever would have hoped.

huh indeed

Masterful trolling indeed, making baseless claims and having them destroyed.

PraetorXyn posted...

Masterful trolling indeed, making baseless claims and having them destroyed.

you have yet to properly say what claims ive even made. so yes id say i did pretty well, thanks.

all i said was that at some point you complained about how certain women dressed, and i backed it up with proof. you immediately ran to "yeah but ackshually i meant" and then basically stopped there and started complaining about me personally

huh

Ferroseed posted...

you have yet to properly say what claims ive even made. so yes id say i did pretty well, thanks.

all i said was that at some point you complained about how certain women dressed, and i backed it up with proof. you immediately ran to "yeah but ackshually i meant" and then basically stopped there and started complaining about me personally

huh

Ferroseed posted...

hey praetor i remember you as somebody who used to complain about women dressing "too sexy"

did you ever move on from that?

The quote you provided was not me complaining about women dressing too sexy. Me saying women dress sexy with the implication from the context of that discussion being that it was in part because lots of desperate men on the internet will throw money at them for doing it is not in any way me complaining about it. If anything, I celebrate it.

Hell, I was literally saying in the thread you're trying to derail that I opposed all forms of censorship of Japanese games when they come to the west which is most typically done to censor fan service these days and this flies in the face of the accusation you made.

But if you want to actually discuss the topic at hand instead of trying to derail the thread by accusing me of holding positions literally the opposite of what I do hold, feel free.

PraetorXyn posted...

is not in any way me complaining about it. If anything, I celebrate it.

I have to question this, because I remember you complaining on 261 that women use sexuality to "advantage themselves."

StealThisSheen posted...

I have to question this, because I remember you complaining on 261 that women use sexuality to "advantage themselves."

If you can find me actually complaining about it rather than simply pointing it out, feel free. Why shouldnt they? Why shouldnt they in general, but especially given all the disadvantages theyve faced historically?

PraetorXyn posted...

If you can find me actually complaining about it rather than simply pointing it out, feel free. Why shouldnt they? Why shouldnt they in general, but especially given all the disadvantages theyve faced historically?

I'd like the both of you to go find 10 couples you know, then come back and tell me the woman isn't running each and every one of those relationships because of sex.

Yes. But that doesn't refute my point that plenty of women, maybe not the majority but definitely a significant percentage, use their beauty and sex appeal to advantage themselves. Saying otherwise is as silly as the notion that all women are helpless victims. Neither does the feminist cause any favors.

No offense, but this does seem like you're complaining about it. If you didn't mean it that way, then okay, but it does seem that way.

Like, "Find me 10 couples where the woman isn't running every one" just comes off as a bizarre argument, in general.

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, "Find me 10 couples where the woman isn't running every one"

gay couples?

Checkmate

Torgo posted...

Do you think the decision could be based on economics, rather than social justice? Especially when dealing with giant studios.

Could these decisions be made with less nefarious intent, and more financial incentive?

Possibly. They could be attempting to capitalize on fresh markets. Though on that front there's heavy contention over whether these business decisions are wise, hence the phrase "get woke go broke". It is respectable how "go fash lose cash" has emerged to counter that, though.

Torgo posted...

The bigots STILL complain about that...look how they complained about the New Star Wars which was marketed on the idea that these would be all new characters, the next generation of rebels and villains.

Well I did preface my statement with the fact that a lot of the complaints are simple bigotry. Alt-right culture warrior types have a significant presence in nerd spheres.

Torgo posted...

In theory, but how many new franchises are being made and marketed with the same investment and marketing as known entities?

Does taking that into account change your perspective at all?

I haven't actually shared my own perspective on the matter. I was only explaining the resistant gamer perspective. Obviously it's difficult to get new franchises off the ground, especially if they aren't targeting the typical audience, and it's also hard to introduce new characters with the same level of importance as the pre-established ones. Thus some may feel the simplest route to inclusion is to not enforce strict demographical consistency for long-running characters in successful franchises. I was just saying that the alternative perspective preferring consistency isn't necessarily rooted in hate, despite often being.

ai123 posted...

And the whole 'author intent' excuse immediately falls apart the moment they don't like any changes that an author makes: 'they've bent the knee to the blue haired feminists on twitter!'

If the changes follow a public outcry it's difficult to pinpoint the cause.

myusernameislame posted...

The other thing about "author intent" is when creators make highly requested changes to literally anything other than representation/diversity type issues (e.g. balance, features, etc), it's them "listening to their audience" and everything is fine.

Well those are mechanical issues rather than aesthetic ones. I'd love new car parts but not necessarily a gray car being painted white.

Raiden2909 posted...

And also that people who scream authors intent are quick to ignore it when the author disagrees with them.. An example is Guilty Gear with Bridget.. Who the Author states is a Trans women.. and the same people who scream the Authors intent is to be followed at all times are now screaming how he is a hack and should be ignored

Well that's silly, since the game and writer confirm she's a girl.

The criticism there would instead be of why exactly the character was presented as a proud feminine boy for years only to turn out to be a trans girl. If you're a feminine male who identified with Bridget before the recent game that's one representative character lost.

Now if Bridget's gender had never been a major part of her character before at all, it wouldn't logically matter that she was revealed as trans now. But players were previously led to believe her main thing was being a dude comfortable with his femininity.

StealThisSheen posted...

No offense, but this does seem like you're complaining about it. If you didn't mean it that way, then okay, but it does seem that way.

Like, "Find me 10 couples where the woman isn't running every one" just comes off as a bizarre argument, in general.

I dont know how I meant it because I dont remember the context of whatever discussions those came from. Ill own up to expressing myself poorly and / or saying stupid things more than once, and that may be one of those times.

But at a high level, Im an egalitarian. I believe that in heterosexual relationships, by and large, women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

Id be hard pressed to think of anything better than the female body, so it should be flaunted as much as possible as far as Im concerned, so long as its a womans own choice and shes not under any pressure or coercion to do it.

Now, I dont remember what I meant by advancing themselves. I have no issue with women dressing more provocatively to advance anything. I would have a problem with anyone sleeping their way to the top the same way I would have with someone paying bribes: its unethical.

Sophie Lloyd is a good example to look to now that I think about it. Shes one of the best guitarists Ive ever seen, and she often is wearing something sexy while shredding the shit out if something, which only increases her popularity. A feast for both eyes and ears. She certainly doesnt need to use sex appeal to be successful, but if it helps and she wants to, more power to her.

PraetorXyn posted...

I dont know how I meant it because I dont remember the context of whatever discussions those came from. Ill own up to expressing myself poorly and / or saying stupid things more than once, and that may be one of those times.

But at a high level, Im an egalitarian. I believe that in heterosexual relationships, by and large, women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

Id be hard pressed to think of anything better than the female body, so it should be flaunted as much as possible as far as Im concerned, so long as its a womans own choice and shes not under any pressure or coercion to do it.

Now, I dont remember what I meant by advancing themselves. I have no issue with women dressing more provocatively to advance anything. I would have a problem with anyone sleeping their way to the top the same way I would have with someone paying bribes: its unethical.

Sophie Lloyd is a good example to look to now that I think about it. Shes one of the best guitarists Ive ever seen, and she often is wearing something sexy while shredding the shit out if something, which only increases her popularity. A feast for both eyes and ears. She certainly doesnt need to use sex appeal to be successful, but if it helps and she wants to, more power to her.

Maybe you've changed over time, but at one point you were very outspoken against "SJW"s and seemed to see feminism as a bad thing, which is where those posts seem to come from, and I'd say that's probably what guided certain reactions to you. But, like said, maybe you've changed over time, so it's not my place to judge.

yeah praetor definitely has some questionable posts such as this:

No. I said I would never hit a woman under any circumstances, not because of reputation, but because they can basically sue you for everything you've got without much proof necessary. When it comes to assault or rape allegations from women against men, it's guilty until proven innocent in this country, and even the cases where the allegations are proven to be fabricated, the men don't get their lives back. See the Duke Lacrosse incident for the most recent example.

which is why im highly suspicious of their gamergate takes

and for context, this post was made in defense of ray rice, who was facing charges for hitting a woman at the time

StealThisSheen posted...

Maybe you've changed over time, but at one point you were very outspoken against "SJW"s and seemed to see feminism as a bad thing, which is where those posts seem to come from, and I'd say that's probably what guided certain reactions to you. But, like said, maybe you've changed over time, so it's not my place to judge.

Eh. My understanding of SJW is a contraction of Social Justice and Keyboard Warrior, and the ones I have a problem with are the ones who terminally complain online about nonsense problems, like a loud minority shaming celebrities for dressing like Native Americans for Halloween to name an easy example.

I support feminism in principle. I have a problem with disingenuous arguments (like the $.23 wage gap, which shrinks to around $.06 or so if you account for occupation, tenure, etc.m and some portion of what remains is likely to do men negotiating more aggressively for raises) and certain feminists of the Big Red variety.

In both cases, its largely because I think shit like that gives the cancerous right ammunition they wouldnt otherwise have, as they have no leg to stand on without a bogeyman to point at, and while they dont need an actual one to do it as evidenced by trans people, giving them legitimate grievances is a bad idea.

I dont really devote any energy to either these days though.

How is this relevant to the topic?

Ferroseed posted...

yeah praetor definitely has some questionable posts

And like this.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/2/AACR8eAAEyOK.jpg

Ferroseed posted...

yeah praetor definitely has some questionable posts such as this:

which is why im highly suspicious of their gamergate takes

and for context, this post was made in defense of ray rice, who was facing charges for hitting a woman at the time

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Friday night?

I never defended Ray Rice. I didnt even know who he was, as I dont give a fuck about sports.

Its a statistical fact that women are favored in the legal system and family court in numerous ways. This is again because of sexism against women.

Its also true that an accusation against a man tends to be very damaging regardless of outcome, like the Duke La Crosse case, which you brought up as if I said something incorrect.

But if the accusation is proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, those men should be buried beneath the prison.

As for Gamergate, I literally hadnt even heard of it until all the gamers are dead articles. Agreeing that the media broad brushing gamers as toxic was wrong is basically all Ive said in this thread until the post against censorship when importing Japanese games to the west.

And then the last hour plus wasted over this derailment. Im popping a bowl of popcorn and watching a movie before bed. Ill check this tomorrow.

PraetorXyn posted...

I have a problem with disingenuous arguments (like the $.23 wage gap, which shrinks to around $.06 or so if you account for occupation, tenure, etc.m and some portion of what remains is likely to do men negotiating more aggressively for raises)

The wage gap is okay because some studies skew it smaller, "and reasons?"

2023 DOL says it's about a $0.17 pay gap.

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20230314#:~:text=Today%20is%20Equal%20Pay%20Day,difference%20of%20%2410%2C000%20per%20year.

EPI says $0.22 as of this year.

https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-widens-even-as-low-wage-workers-see-strong-gains-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/

bro nobody is buying it you can really easily find you posting the generic sad internet guy stuff that was the bread and butter of gamergate when it was in full swing. it took me like 10 seconds of scrolling to find you complaining about women

stage4saiyan posted...

How is this relevant to the topic?

seriously?

Gamergate was peak internet drama.

They even made a Law and Order SVU episode inspired by it,

Inohira posted...

Possibly. They could be attempting to capitalize on fresh markets. Though on that front there's heavy contention over whether these business decisions are wise, hence the phrase "get woke go broke". It is respectable how "go fash lose cash" has emerged to counter that, though.

Yeah... so this suggests the right wing engaging in a form of market terrorism where they use media platforms to push racist conspiracies and lies in an attempt to sabotage media releases, even going so far as to invoke grooming and great replacement accusations.

So it's not so much "go woke go broke" as it is: "promote a an expressely non-white supremacist narrative, get the loud lunatics and nazis we've cultivated sent after you."

TL:DR - a form of "Look what you made me do"?

Inohira posted...

Well I did preface my statement with the fact that a lot of the complaints are simple bigotry. Alt-right culture warrior types have a significant presence in nerd spheres.

So why did you frame it that way to where I had to point this out with examples where new franchises and characters still get attacked?

Inohira posted...

I haven't actually shared my own perspective on the matter.

I actually think you're trying to push a reactionary narrative, but doing the common tactic of attempting to play different positions when needed so you can't be tied to any position. Very alt-right.

Inohira posted...

Obviously it's difficult to get new franchises off the ground, especially if they aren't targeting the typical audience, and it's also hard to introduce new characters with the same level of importance as the pre-established ones.

Dude... let's talk about the reality on the ground in 2023 - 90% of the big budgeted entertainment is a reboot, rehash, sequel, re-imaginging, prequel, or side story to an established franchise.

I don't like it, but that's where we are. Where does that leave a diverse field of actors if we're just going to be slaves to traditional interpretations - many of which already take great liberties with the source material!

Inohira posted...

I was just saying that the alternative perspective preferring consistency isn't necessarily rooted in hate, despite often being.

It's usually pretty obvious which critiques are rooted in misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc...and which are earnest media critiques. No one is being fooled. We know who is pushing this and why.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

They levelled up.

the_pika posted...

seriously?

Really really.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You mean more cringe than the Furry one?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


BombermanGold posted...

You mean more cringe than the Furry one?

"Ripped straight from the headlines" - and then bungled by out of touch writers in their 50s!

Torgo posted...

So why did you frame it that way to where I had to point this out with examples where new franchises and characters still get attacked?

You feeling compelled to do something doesn't mean it was necessary. I explicitly stated bigots would be prone to do that.

Torgo posted...

I actually think you're trying to push a reactionary narrative, but doing the common tactic of attempting to play different positions when needed so you can't be tied to any position. Very alt-right.

I don't get why your type fails to understand the difference between explanations and endorsements. You look for any opportunity to start attacking personal character. Is sticking to the core discussion without using lazy smears as a crutch that hard?

...I guess it is when you have no actual point and just want to argue.

Torgo posted...

It's usually pretty obvious which critiques are rooted in misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc...and which are earnest media critiques. No one is being fooled. We know who is pushing this and why.

Considering you just associated me with the alt-right despite me criticizing the alt-right throughout the topic (only defending those who I specifically do not think are necessarily alt-righters) your takes on intent are hardly reliable.

PraetorXyn posted...

In both cases, its largely because I think shit like that gives the cancerous right ammunition they wouldnt otherwise have, as they have no leg to stand on without a bogeyman to point at, and while they dont need an actual one to do it as evidenced by trans people, giving them legitimate grievances is a bad idea.

Honestly I wouldn't be so invested in the discussion if I hadn't seen in real-time a sizable portion of a generation of gamers being lost to the alt-right. The aggression displayed in this topic over mild differences of opinion and priorities absolutely can turn fragile people (such as socially isolated gamers) against causes they'd have otherwise left alone, or perhaps even supported.

Politically I wish there were more left types who knew how to talk to the middle. Bernie Sanders is great at it and even Elizabeth Warren managed sometimes, and unlike the centrists they did it wihout compromising their values. Meanwhile a lot of these internet folks are the opposite, low on actual ideological substance but high on partisan hostility. It's the difference between trying to expand a movement and just circlejerking.

AceMos posted...

uh huh sure if you say so

mean while not a single one of those things matches the actual definition of woke

why are you even trying to pretend your not a former member of gamer gate every one knows you are based on your posts in this topic

You should have left the insanity in your cave.

AceMos posted...

ok mr 8 post alt

He's not wrong. I'm now saying it too.

Ferroseed posted...

i see. thanks for proving my point.

What point?

DnDer posted...

The wage gap is okay because some studies skew it smaller, "and reasons?"

I never said it was OK. I just said deliberately exaggerating it by taking the average wages of all women in aggregate and dividing it by the average wages all men in aggregate instead of comparing the wages by occupation, seniority level, etc., is bad analysis.

2023 DOL says it's about a $0.17 pay gap.

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20230314#:~:text=Today%20is%20Equal%20Pay%20Day,difference%20of%20%2410%2C000%20per%20year.

EPI says $0.22 as of this year.

https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-widens-even-as-low-wage-workers-see-strong-gains-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/

Both of these do what Im describing.

The wage gap is a problem, and some of its nature, some of its nurture. Sometimes its both. Id say teaching being dominated by women is nature, and its probably no coincidence that teachers are paid like shit. Teachers should be paid a lot more than they are. I wouldnt be a teacher for three times what most teachers make the way parents are these days: most people get into teaching because they love teaching.

A proper analysis will still show a gap, and gives a better idea of how to actually fix it industry by industry. It would also show that there are a lot fewer women in leadership positions, and thats a huge part of the problem.

Maternity is also a big chunk of it, as women dont get maternity leave worth a damn here, and they certainly arent getting raises to keep up with men while theyre on it. They should.

I dont pretend to have all the solutions, but math was one of my majors, so I like more detailed analyses as they explain things better.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ill own up to this being a mistake and apologize to anyone offended by it, but laughing at a name Id never heard before which hit me as hilarious at the given time doesnt make me racist.

Inohira posted...

Honestly I wouldn't be so invested in the discussion if I hadn't seen in real-time a sizable portion of a generation of gamers being lost to the alt-right. The aggression displayed in this topic over mild differences of opinion and priorities absolutely can turn fragile people (such as socially isolated gamers) against causes they'd have otherwise left alone, or perhaps even supported.

Politically I wish there were more left types who knew how to talk to the middle. Bernie Sanders is great at it and even Elizabeth Warren managed sometimes, and unlike the centrists they did it wihout compromising their values. Meanwhile a lot of these internet folks are the opposite, low on actual ideological substance but high on partisan hostility. It's the difference between trying to expand a movement and just circlejerking.

Exactly. When I get riled up about social issues its typically at election time, and it basically comes from a place of How can you bungle an election this badly?

The last couple of elections, we were only saved by Republicans having become so fucking awful they partially awoke the sleeping giant that is the youth vote. If Democrats would learn to tap into that the way Bernie did in a general election, it would be amazing.

PraetorXyn posted...

Exactly. When I get riled up about social issues its typically at election time, and it basically comes from a place of How can you bungle an election this badly?

The last couple of elections, we were only saved by Republicans having become so fucking awful they partially awoke the sleeping giant that is the youth vote. If Democrats would learn to tap into that the way Bernie did in a general election, it would be amazing.

PraetorXyn posted...

Exactly. When I get riled up about social issues its typically at election time, and it basically comes from a place of How can you bungle an election this badly?

The last couple of elections, we were only saved by Republicans having become so fucking awful they partially awoke the sleeping giant that is the youth vote. If Democrats would learn to tap into that the way Bernie did in a general election, it would be amazing.

bernie is partly to blame for the current horrid SCOTUS. Stop

the_pika posted...

bernie is partly to blame for the current horrid SCOTUS.

lol

PraetorXyn posted...

Exactly. When I get riled up about social issues its typically at election time, and it basically comes from a place of How can you bungle an election this badly?

The last couple of elections, we were only saved by Republicans having become so fucking awful they partially awoke the sleeping giant that is the youth vote. If Democrats would learn to tap into that the way Bernie did in a general election, it would be amazing.

Yeah Trump being Trump along with his obnoxious base of supporters is doing heavy patchwork for the Dems. But as a result we typically see Dem. strategists saying now, "youth/left-independents will turn out against the threat of MAGA, we can focus on other demographics" which is fine as long as it remains accurate, but who knows how long the effect remains.

the_pika posted...

bernie is partly to blame for the current horrid SCOTUS. Stop

Democratic leaders and voters rallying behind a candidate who polled worse for the general election, had the 2nd lowest public favorability ratings of a major party frontrunner in history, and was being actively targeted by a FBI sham investigation that predictably "reopened" right before election day was more to blame for that.

The red flags were apparent from the start and plenty of other Democrats (didn't have to be Bernie) could've beaten Trump (in the Electoral College, before anyone goes "she got more votes!!!" about this).

the_pika posted...

bernie is partly to blame for the current horrid SCOTUS. Stop

For fucks sake. Do we really want to relitigate the 2016 primary again?

If Bernie hadnt run at all, theres probably at least a 95% chance the results are exactly the same. Hillary would still have ignored the Midwest despite alarms from volunteers on the ground. She still would have been under an FBI investigation that could very predictably be reopened at the most opportune time. So regardless of what you think the cause was, all the evidence suggests it wasnt Bernie Sanders, since Hillary got a higher percentage of Bernie primary voters than Obama got of Hillarys in 2008.

The election was swung by about 70,000 votes in the Rust Belt. Bernies demographic are the kind who fled the Rust Belt because there are not enough good jobs there. Hell, Michael Moore was actively calling the Democrats losing the Rust Belt in June 2016 at the very latest, and nobody did jack shit.

Im fairly certain exit polls have shown that those votes were former Obama voters and mostly leaned conservative, which is exactly the kind of thing were talking about. They werent Bernie or Buster progressives, but he probably would have had crossover appeal with some of them just as Obama did.

The rust belt revolution is a myth. That is not what happened in 2016. Uneducated but financially stable/well off white people are what gave Trump the win. It had very little to do with "economic insecurity" and everything to do with racism, sexism, and isolationist policy (that stems from racism).

PraetorXyn posted...

If Bernie hadnt run at all, theres probably at least a 95% chance the results are exactly the same. Hillary would still have ignored the Midwest despite alarms from volunteers on the ground.

Honestly without Bernie less people would've even caught warning that she was unpopular in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, since she would've just won their primary and moved on. So basically she was given a wake up call but chose to sleep.

COVxy posted...

The rust belt revolution is a myth. That is not what happened in 2016. Uneducated but financially stable/well off white people are what gave Trump the win. It had very little to do with "economic insecurity" and everything to do with racism, sexism, and isolationist policy (that stems from racism).

Uneducated but well off whites in the Midwest are often fossil fuel guys, the exact people whose factories Hillary said were going to be shut down.

Bernie's strong against climate change and basically would've done the same thing but knew he needed an alternative way to placate those voters, so he leaned on buy American economic protectionism instead. Meanwhile Hillary was historically known as a free trader and previously praised the TPP, so she was 2 for 2 on frustrating that group.

"Sure the Republicans are doing objectively horrible and destructive things but the problem is that Democrats didn't stop them and that's Bernie's fault."

Sure is a take.

Try that in real life. Go crash your car into a 7-11 and then say the problem is the 7-11's lovely grandmother was the one at fault for not making the manager stop you from commiting crimes.

This is insanity.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that the left slept in 2016. Placing the blame on Bernie isn't it, but it's true that the voters just didn't turn out. Was it actually Hillary? Was it push back against a potential female President? Was it complacency in thinking "She's going to win, anyway, since Trump is so bad?" Nobody actually knows. It's certain it wasn't Bernie's fault, but beyond that... Who knows.

StealThisSheen posted...

There is a legitimate argument to be made that the left slept in 2016. Placing the blame on Bernie isn't it, but it's true that the voters just didn't turn out. Was it actually Hillary? Was it push back against a potential female President? Was it complacency in thinking "She's going to win, anyway, since Trump is so bad?" Nobody actually knows. It's certain it wasn't Bernie's fault, but beyond that... Who knows.

I think the third one was by far the biggest factor. Basically all the coverage I remember was giving her like a 99.6% to win, she looked completely inevitable and a shoe-in. So I think that made a lot of people sleep on it. Her having very high unfavorables only compounded that, as people though: Well, I dont like her, but shes gonna win anyway, so if I just stay home nothing bad happens and my hands are clean.

StealThisSheen posted...

but it's true that the voters just didn't turn out.

She got 65,853,625 votes. That's 2.8+ million more than the 62,985,106 votes Trump got

128 million people did turn out. Problem is 63 mil will Republicans. They are 100% to blame

Blaming Democrats for Republicans being awful is stupid

*whaps you with newspaper*

No. Stop. No!

Edie: Just to add to that in 2020 more people turned out and Biden won the popular vote by 7 million

He still only won the election by like 60,000 votes because the system is borked.

Point is you can't blame someone for "not stopping" Someone else. Especially when half the adult population of the company is against them

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

She got 65,853,625 votes. That's 2.8+ million more than the 62,985,106 votes Trump got

128 million people did turn out. Problem is 63 mil will Republicans. They are 100% to blame

Blaming Democrats for Republicans being awful is stupid

*whaps you with newspaper*

No. Stop. No!

Both can be correct, you know.

Yes, she got more popular vote.

But people slept in the areas where the vote was needed most.

Thanks, electoral college.

EDIT: Luckily, we have seemed to correct that problem in 2020 and beyond. Hopefully, it stays that way.

ppl forget hillary did campaign in the areas its just she was honest with them about the fact coal jobs are not going to stick around

while trump lied to them

AceMos posted...

ppl forget hillary did campaign in the areas its just she was honest with them about the fact coal jobs are not going to stick around

while trump lied to them

This is also true. Hillary wasn't going to win over Kentucky, for example, no matter how hard she tried, because they'd rather be lied to, as long as it reaffirmed their beliefs. Kentucky wasn't in play. Ohio, and especially Pennsylvania SHOULD have been, though.

EDIT: And, to be fair, she barely lost Pennsylvania. She barely lost Michigan. Etc. and so on. That's what I'm talking about.

StealThisSheen posted...

Both can be correct, you know.

No they are not correct

You cannot use "Well they didn't stop the GOP from being awful so t's their fault for not doing enough" as an attack on anyone

Attack the GOP. Anything else is ridiclous.

Donald Trump is not Clinton's fault, he's certainally not Sanders fault.

He's the fault of the near 70 million people who support him and the Republican infastructure that propped him up. You can't blame anyone but Trump, those 70 people and Republicans.

Am I gonna have to roll up the newspaper again or are you going to stop being so silly?

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

lol

your lol wont change the facts

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

No they are not correct

You cannot use "Well they didn't stop the GOP from being awful so t's their fault for not doing enough" as an attack on anyone

Attack the GOP. Anything else is ridiclous.

Donald Trump is not Clinton's fault, he's certainally not Sanders fault.

He's the fault of the near 70 million people who support him and the Republican infastructure that propped him up. You can't blame anyone but Trump, those 70 people and Republicans.

Am I gonna have to roll up the newspaper again or are you going to stop being so silly?

I mean, your logic is flawed, since republicans were never gonna vote democrat, anyway. Yes, obviously, they're to be blamed for voting for Trump, but they were always going to vote Trump. And in 2016, only 59% of the voting population actually showed up to vote. So, yes, people did "sleep" on Hillary. Notice that, in 2020, Biden won specifically because the voting population grew from 59% to 67%.