From #1reasonwhy to #1reasontobe, and 1,600 Comments In-Between

@EnduranceFun said:

@CaptStickybeard said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

I feel Jeff's comment was correct and justified. He made it quite clear that he was only calling out "some" of the community.

And that's the problem.

Focusing on the fire starters instead of the actual discussion/ideas.

This. Like I said in my comment, the amount 'some' pertains to - and I made it very clear in my comment that he highlighted the word 'some,' so I don't know why you felt the need to re-highlight it as if I didn't - is a very tiny amount of commenters. And they were so intermittent and posting such small posts, I doubt they were even reading the rest of the comment section first; trying to 'stop them' with a forum post obviously would not work.

It honestly only threw fuel on the fire as Jeff did not acknowledge that this was a small amount of the commenters, only 'some,' allowing the implication to follow that 'hey, he may mean everyone who disagreed with the article!' That may not be what Jeff meant, but he hardly went out of his way to accurately portray the comments. That's irresponsible when he also acknowledged there are 'antagonizing posts.'

The best way to handle a tense situation is not to pop in with a vaguely defined insult directed at 'some people,' then leave immediately after, ensuring that no one can ask you to clarify what you just said.

I disagree entirely and think the best way to come down on the trolls is to stamp them out with your boot. You're acting overly sensitive to a comment that wasn't addressed to you and many of the other commenters. And yes, I felt that I needed to re-highlight "some" since many of you still just don't seem to get it even when you acknowledge that you were not the target of his post but are still feeling persecuted. Like many other human beings, Jeff got annoyed at the amount of ignorance in this thread (and despite your claims otherwise, it had to be a substantial amount to get him annoyed, not this extreme minority you keep going on about) and posted a statement showing his annoyance. And I don't see how his comment "added fuel to the fire" since the conversation has since calmed down a bit. You and the others who need clarification on what seems like a very cut and dry post indicates to me that you have lost sight of the original issue and just want to change the discussion to something else entirely because it's hard to be on the side that denies the severity of sexism in the gaming industry or its relevance on Giant Bomb.

@BigDaddy81 said:

it's hard to be on the side that denies the severity of sexism in the gaming industry or its relevance on Giant Bomb.

Seriously, that is not the case. Nearly everyone complaining has said that they either don't care or want better coverage, not that they 'deny the severeity of sexism in the gaming industry.' I cannot believe someone is pushing this lie after all the previous discussion.

And all I said was that Jeff's post was bad, not that I felt persecuted. You argue that Jeff knew what he was doing on the basis of his professionalism and reading the comments, two aspects I actively questioned.

You know, your post backs up exactly what I said. Jeff vaguely identifies trolls, users then interpret this as a call to attack the people having an intelligent debate, based purely on their stance against the article, which they hold for perfectly justifiable reasons.

I won't say it's a minority, I'd say the amount who popped in to say "STAY IN DA KITCHEN LOLZ" is probably equal in number to those who said "We should have justice and fairness for all, regardless of gender."

The difference is is that the assholes who come to squat and shit on the argument _aren't sticking around to be lectured_. They are gone five seconds after making their post, off to find someone else to frustrate. The people who remain, who are 'fighting the good fight', all the ones who remain to be scorned and shamed for the actions of the miscreant. The trolls are having a one-way discussion, where they say something provocative and then throw a smoke bomb and vanish. Hectoring their backs as they leap through the skylight is not effective, and lumping them in with the reasonable and responsible only serves to demonize anyone who dares disagree.

I will say I've been emotionally ground down by 'fighting the good fight'. For attempting to overhaul sexism, all it's rewarded me with is being called a sexist. It's exhausting to be constantly undermined and have every ethical argument dismissed on account of my gender. I would never dare to tell someone "well you're a woman or trans, you are too different to understand!" It all reeks of the brutal chauvinism that men reacted to proto-feminists with. "She thinks she understands government, despite being a woman! Pshaw and poppycock!"

And still, don't disagree with the goal here. Women should have as many opportunities and rights as men, in the gaming industry or otherwise. And I'd like more female protagonists out of nothing more than diversity of experience (and not tokenism spurred by some kind of equality quota). But we should always act as just and fair as possible for good causes. Look at John A. Adams and the Boston Massacre. Despite being a patriot, he defended the British at a time when it would be political suicide, he could have said "hang them, in the name of America!" but instead he defended them; because it was just.

@NyxFe said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@NyxFe: Thank you for assuming what I am or am not doing with my time. Also, for all your time and energies spent toward convincing everyone that they're feminist, the word egalitarian has slipped your radar completely.

Feminist is a subset of egalitarian, and if you are egalitarian you are feminist by definition.

By that logic, wouldn't you also have to be a masculinist?

@NyxFe: Look....I'm....sincerely sorry that I think differently than you do, really. It's a real shame that we have different definitions of a word (and don't give me the bullshark about "The dictionary definition says this!" Because hey English language, what are you doing here with multiple meanings?), really, but I am not a feminist. Never have been, never will be. Sorry. I'm an egalitarian, not a feminist. Deal with it.

@Brodehouse said:

I won't say it's a minority, I'd say the amount who popped in to say "STAY IN DA KITCHEN LOLZ" is probably equal in number to those who said "We should have justice and fairness for all, regardless of gender." The difference is is that the assholes who come to squat and shit on the argument _aren't sticking around to be lectured_. They are gone five seconds after making their post, off to find someone else to frustrate. The people who remain, who are 'fighting the good fight', all the ones who remain to be scorned and shamed for the actions of the miscreant. The trolls are having a one-way discussion, where they say something provocative and then throw a smoke bomb and vanish. Hectoring their backs as they leap through the skylight is not effective, and lumping them in with the reasonable and responsible only serves to demonize anyone who dares disagree. I will say I've been emotionally ground down by 'fighting the good fight'. For attempting to overhaul sexism, all it's rewarded me with is being called a sexist. It's exhausting to be constantly undermined and have every ethical argument dismissed on account of my gender. I would never dare to tell someone "well you're a woman or trans, you are too different to understand!" It all reeks of the brutal chauvinism that men reacted to proto-feminists with. "She thinks she understands government, despite being a woman! Pshaw and poppycock!" And still, don't disagree with the goal here. Women should have as many opportunities and rights as men, in the gaming industry or otherwise. And I'd like more female protagonists out of nothing more than diversity of experience (and not tokenism spurred by some kind of equality quota). But we should always act as just and fair as possible for good causes. Look at John A. Adams and the Boston Massacre. Despite being a patriot, he defended the British at a time when it would be political suicide, he could have said "hang them, in the name of America!" but instead he defended them; because it was just.

Obviously completely agree. Jeff may actually be partly at fault for comments like AmericanNinja's. He and Ryan, since the dawn of Giant Bomb, have had this wacky sense of humour. Some of these 'provocative posts' may simply be trying to emulate that humour and yet they still get treated as if they're a serious party. Even Patrick has that one meme, 'video gaaaames xDD'

Old point, but... it's a tonal problem. If Patrick wants to have a serious article, he has to have hard evidence, cover every side of the argument and keep the tone consistent. The first article did not do this, it slipped back into the sarcastic funny man side of Giant Bomb when it mentioned Dead or Alive DLC at the end, which pissed off more than a few users.

@NyxFe: What then is the male equivalent of feminism? Does one exist?

Just curious.

@EnduranceFun said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

it's hard to be on the side that denies the severity of sexism in the gaming industry or its relevance on Giant Bomb.

Seriously, that is not the case. Nearly everyone complaining has said that they either don't care or want better coverage, not that they 'deny the severeity of sexism in the gaming industry.' I cannot believe someone is pushing this lie after all the previous discussion.

And all I said was that Jeff's post was bad, not that I felt persecuted. You argue that Jeff knew what he was doing on the basis of his professionalism and reading the comments, two aspects I actively questioned.

You know, your post backs up exactly what I said. Jeff vaguely identifies trolls, users then interpret this as a call to attack the people having an intelligent debate, based purely on their stance against the article, which they hold for perfectly justifiable reasons.

Whatever your original opinion on the subject of this thread has been lost due to your fixation on Jeff's post. You are trying to derail the debate to call out Jeff for his attempt to shut up some of the idiots in here. If you're a teacher in a classroom and have a couple of unruly students disrupting the rest of the class, you don't solve the problem by saying "Hey everyone, I just wanna say what a good job you're doing and I really appreciate those of you are behaving. Gold stickers for everyone!". No, you tell the little unruly shits to shut the fuck up. That's how you deal with these types of people.

And I don't think some of the users' stance against the article is "perfectly justifiable". Most of their issues seems to be that Patrick expressed disgust with certain people who were dismissive of the issue entirely or didn't think it deserved to be reported on Giant Bomb. And then Patrick committed the cardinal sin of singling a person out (who posted on public fucking forum) for their bullshit. Statements have consequences and a lot of people here are beginning to learn that. This whole attitude of "you don't attack your own" is complete and utter bullshit.

There is room for intelligent discussion here, but you and others like you are contributing to the problem by just bitching about Jeff's post. And by responding to you, I am also contributing to the problem as well. So either start a new thread to detail your concerns or go back to talking about the original subject of the thread. This particular discussion has become asinine.

@BigDaddy81 said:

Whatever your original opinion on the subject of this thread has been lost due to your fixation on Jeff's post.

No, you are fixated on my post and are now replying using mass ad hominem.

You're reposting talking points from earlier in the discussion and putting your own spin on them while pretending that these are not subjective, but objective facts about the comment section. Just stop.

@NyxFe said:

@CaptStickybeard said:

@NyxFe said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@NyxFe: Thank you for assuming what I am or am not doing with my time. Also, for all your time and energies spent toward convincing everyone that they're feminist, the word egalitarian has slipped your radar completely.

Feminist is a subset of egalitarian, and if you are egalitarian you are feminist by definition.

By that logic, wouldn't you also have to be a masculinist?

Not necessarily, as masculinist only refers to advocating men's rights, not necessarily equal rights like egalitarianism and feminism.

You're silly.

LMAO!

You people are hating on Patrick for doing his job, but he created two back-to-back threads with over one thousand and six hundred comments. That's never been done on this website before.

That's called winning, and you people complaining over a topic that makes you think and question yourself are responsible for his success.

Congrats.

@AV_Gamer: ROFL! 100s of people hated my article! That's called winning!

This is what I would call a 'shitstorm.' Not a success.

@EnduranceFun said:

@AV_Gamer: ROFL! 100s of people hated my article! That's called winning!

This is what I would call a 'shitstorm.' Not a success.

Sadly, AV Gamer is kind of right. Patrick's job is get hits and he succeeded - beyond expectations I'm sure.

@EnduranceFun said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

Whatever your original opinion on the subject of this thread has been lost due to your fixation on Jeff's post.

No, you are fixated on my post and are now replying using mass ad hominem.

You're reposting talking points from earlier in the discussion and putting your own spin on them while pretending that these are not subjective, but objective facts about the comment section. Just stop.

I'm fixated on your posts because you keep posting the same fucking thing over and over.

Look at Brodehouse. You both share similar opinions but at least he varies his discussion and stays on topic. You just keep going on and on about Jeff and his impact on this thread. And I made the mistake of letting myself get annoyed by it.

I don't consider the GB staff infallible, but I give Jeff enough credit that he knows what the fuck he's doing. And Patrick can keep on posting editorials expressing his own opinion and addressing issues that concern the gaming industry. You know, his job? You see this line: "Some thoughts on the fiery discussion prompted at Giant Bomb and elsewhere by a Twitter hashtag meant to raise awareness of sexism in the video game industry"? That was the header for the second article Patrick wrote. What about that line indicates that this is going to be some meticulously researched, objective overview of the issue at hand? He wrote an editorial about his feelings on the matter and did in fact use evidence to back up his statements. I put more stock in his opinion than some random person in a forum whining because Jeff said some people commenting in this thread suck. He is right and Patrick's article needs no more justification. He expressed an opinion and invited discussion about it.

I mete and dole out unequal laws unto a savage race.

And this article got 1600 comments too, so what next?

@BigDaddy81 said:

And Patrick can keep on posting editorials expressing his own opinion and addressing issues that concern the gaming industry. You know, his job?

His job is to be a journalist.

Not spout his opinion.

@Village_Guy said:

I mete and dole out unequal laws unto a savage race.

And this article got 1600 comments too, so what next?

A third follow-up article

@BigDaddy81:

You just keep going on and on about Jeff and his impact on this thread.

I made one post about it and replied to the replies on that post.

That's apparently enough to make you upset. Is Jeff your role model?

@EnduranceFun said:

@AV_Gamer: ROFL! 100s of people hated my article! That's called winning!

This is what I would call a 'shitstorm.' Not a success.

Well, let's keep things in perspective here. Nothing that has ever upset "100s of people" was ever a SHITSTORM.

An exception would be if Jim Lahey was commenting.

@Ohvee: Maybe you're right. Though I certainly would not call it a success. Ironically, that is only true if you follow the now infamous Kotaku logic that this article is "clickbait," which it is not.

Personally, and no one take this the wrong way, I imagine Patrick will be happy about this not because of hits, but because he always came across to me as someone who likes attention. Emphasis on likes, not craves.

@NyxFe said:

@CaptStickybeard said:

@NyxFe said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@NyxFe: Thank you for assuming what I am or am not doing with my time. Also, for all your time and energies spent toward convincing everyone that they're feminist, the word egalitarian has slipped your radar completely.

Feminist is a subset of egalitarian, and if you are egalitarian you are feminist by definition.

By that logic, wouldn't you also have to be a masculinist?

Not necessarily, as masculinist only refers to advocating men's rights, not necessarily equal rights like egalitarianism and feminism.

I agree with CaptStickybeard. You're silly, and I mean the literal definition of it.

@EnduranceFun said:

@BigDaddy81:

You just keep going on and on about Jeff and his impact on this thread.

I made one post about it and replied to the replies on that post.

That's apparently enough to make you upset. Is Jeff your role model?

Actually I tend to disagree with him on many issues. But if he makes it a habit of calling out idiots on the forums, I'm not gonna gainsay him.

@CaptStickybeard said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

And Patrick can keep on posting editorials expressing his own opinion and addressing issues that concern the gaming industry. You know, his job?

His job is to be a journalist.

Not spout his opinion.

Definition of EDITORIAL

: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also: an expression of opinion that resembles such an article

@BigDaddy81: Right. I don't care about Patrick's opinion. I care about news.

@BigDaddy81: At least you're no longer under the illusion that I'm bullying Jeff.

The problem there is, this is marked as 'news.' I'm fine with Patrick making editorials or blogs, but they need to be properly categorised. Though I get the sense from how he rarely posts on Giant Bomb compared to Twitter, NeoGAF and Reddit, that he would rather avoid the Giant Bomb forums altogether. Say what you will, but that's a shame when people here clearly want to converse.

@EnduranceFun said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

it's hard to be on the side that denies the severity of sexism in the gaming industry or its relevance on Giant Bomb.

Seriously, that is not the case. Nearly everyone complaining has said that they either don't care or want better coverage, not that they 'deny the severeity of sexism in the gaming industry.' I cannot believe someone is pushing this lie after all the previous discussion.

And all I said was that Jeff's post was bad, not that I felt persecuted. You argue that Jeff knew what he was doing on the basis of his professionalism and reading the comments, two aspects I actively questioned.

You know, your post backs up exactly what I said. Jeff vaguely identifies trolls, users then interpret this as a call to attack the people having an intelligent debate, based purely on their stance against the article, which they hold for perfectly justifiable reasons.

To get back to your original position then: In your first post on this subject, you called Patrick's first article "insulting to males", because it used twitter quotes as sources. Your wording would also suggest that all males were under attack by the article and the twitter movement. Now this is either being over-sensitive or deliberately misreading the original article's stated intention. The only males under attack were people being sexist in the games industry. But not only this, you, from your very first post, took an aggressive, strongly worded stance against Patrick and the article.

So it seems you're as much to blame as anyone in this debate escalating. Feel free to correct me, if I'm off base here.

@Rasmoss: What post are you even talking about? My first one on this article, says nothing like that.

So yes, until you explain yourself, you are completely off-base.

I feel like there are four simultaneous arguments going on and they have exacerbated this thread to epic proportions.

1. Women in games, their struggles and the best and most fair solutions to give equality to all.
2. The legitimacy of this argument to appear on Giant Bomb.
3. The quality, tenor and overall professionalism of the staff in addressing the first two issues.
4. The struggles on the forums and in argument in general to be fair and equal to all parties.

I'm all for number 1. I'd like that to be the crux of the discussion, although in truth, the 'solution' has to be on a person-by-person, company-by-company basis. And we also have to understand that fair criticism of solutions (or struggles) exists to create fair solutions; to create an unequal solution to a problem of inequality only fosters more inequality, not less. We can't build an equitable society with social stigmas and restrictions ingrained for specific groups. Because of course not.

2 is easy. Of course it's a legitimate topic of discussion. This is a personality driven website, not a topic driven website. I'm sure people who aren't interested in an in-depth investigation of beds and furniture was disappointed by this week's bombcast.

3 I think is valid, the ways we discuss problems defines how we resolve them. I have specific problems in how Patrick framed his argument, and I voiced them. I'm sure others have their own issues.

4 follows the same path and is connected to what I said in 1; it's important that we appeal to the highest levels of fairness when we discuss inequality, otherwise you wind up in an awful maelstrom of ad hominem attacks of "whining women" and "privileged men".

Maybe it would be more useful to create some additional threads for the specific topics and arguments, but it ultimately swirls together anyway. It's absolutely a messy problem but I'm actually glad it's happening here, as emotionally drained as it leaves me to participate.

@EnduranceFun: This was your post on the first article:

"EnduranceFunon Nov. 27, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.

Haven't we had this discussion enough? You have to be living under a rock if you didn't already know that there are equality issues when it comes to women in the workplace and life in general. There is no need to be making articles like this, let alone two of them. How about instead of constantly beating 'awareness' into our heads we just take some damn action? Just speak up when you come across harassment in the workplace, if you stay quiet you are hurting your own cause. Don't keep it to yourself and wait for some dumb #hashtag six months later. I love you Pat but this just seems like lazy journalism.

@NyxFe said:

@EnduranceFun: Possibly "Masculanism" but that is rarely used. There isn't really an equivalent since men have always held the dominant position in modern society. Feminism technically applies to both and not just women's rights though, as per "Equal rights for men and women" cf. any definition of the word.

What people tend to disagree on is that 'men hold the dominant position.' Not everyone has it easy and others would say their success is not because of their gender.

I hope you understand this.

@Rasmoss said:

@EnduranceFun: This was your post on the first article:

"EnduranceFunon Nov. 27, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.

@ripelivejam said:

@McGhee said:

I imagine mods going into disaster emergency mode when an article like this gets posted. lol

they don't moderate these comments though, they never do. wouldn't be amiss if they started. (cue cries of CENSORSHIP! :D )

All Patrick did was copy and paste tweets. The subject here is insulting to males. Edgy non-journalism.

Now, how would you 'moderate' these comments?"

Just seems silly to go find a comment I made three days ago and pretend it's relevant. I've mellowed out considerably since then and taken an active part in what's transpired, finding a middle-ground with others who have done the same. I also never asked for any moderation...? All I want is for fair and equal treatment, not to be looked upon with scorn because of an idiotic few.

@EnduranceFun: It just seems like you're reading all this through the eyes of someone being persecuted, first by the original article, then by the second article, and then by Jeff's post. When in fact, you haven't been the target of any of these items.

@NyxFe said:

@EnduranceFun: Possibly "Masculanism" but that is rarely used. There isn't really an equivalent since men have always held the dominant position in modern society. Feminism technically applies to both and not just women's rights though, as per "Equal rights for men and women" cf. any definition of the word.

What people tend to disagree on is that 'men hold the dominant position.' Not everyone has it easy and others would say their success is not because of their gender.

The above is another example of it. You're reading someone saying "men hold the dominant position" as meaning "men have never done anything to deserve success ever", or "all men have it easy". That's not what's being said.

@illmatic19: Just read the comment section and it's kinda obvious why more people don't speak up. You're more likely to encounter apathy than empathy or sympathy. "Grow a set of balls and stop whining" has become the philosophy of the day. Is it any wonder why women don't often speak up, particularly when rape is involved. And it's not just women either. To avoid turning this to simply a "problem of the week," this conversation really needs to open the doors to whole variety of social issues such as race, gender, sexuality, etc, etc...

Yet what's the attitude whenever this gets posted on a video game forum? "Oh, not this again." "Oh,this is totally a non-issue." "Oh, feminism is trying to overthrow teh males." The reason why awareness should be continually made is to combat apathy; there's still far too many people who think that "this is normal." That we shouldn't change things because "that's how its always been," and if you argue against it "you're crazy for bringing it up." So yeah, I'm totally find with awareness being constant; It should be.

Again: If we want gaming to be better, we have to expect it to be better.

@Rasmoss said:

@EnduranceFun: It just seems like you're reading all this through the eyes of someone being persecuted, first by the original article, then by the second article, and then by Jeff's post. When in fact, you haven't been the target of any of these items.

@NyxFe said:

@EnduranceFun: Possibly "Masculanism" but that is rarely used. There isn't really an equivalent since men have always held the dominant position in modern society. Feminism technically applies to both and not just women's rights though, as per "Equal rights for men and women" cf. any definition of the word.

What people tend to disagree on is that 'men hold the dominant position.' Not everyone has it easy and others would say their success is not because of their gender.

The above is another example of it. You're reading someone saying "men hold the dominant position" as meaning "men have never done anything to deserve success ever", or "all men have it easy". That's not what's being said.

Laughably facetious. All I have asked for, is the staff to take seriously the legitimate queries in the comments.

It's bizarre that you are psycho-analysing my posts. Read and consider what they say instead of trying to dismiss them as my having some kind of pre-conceived problem, that would be a respectful approach.

@NyxFe said:

@EnduranceFun: Possibly "Masculanism" but that is rarely used. There isn't really an equivalent since men have always held the dominant position in modern society. Feminism technically applies to both and not just women's rights though, as per "Equal rights for men and women" cf. any definition of the word.

You're just a silly goose.

@patrickklepek great article man. Love your work. Keep on bringing to light things that need to be discussed and exposed. I don't understand why giantbomb has so many self entitled jerks. If you don't like the article, stop reading, if you don't like all the articles, stop visiting at all. Pretty simple stuff.

@NyxFe said:

@CaptStickybeard said:

@NyxFe said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@NyxFe: Thank you for assuming what I am or am not doing with my time. Also, for all your time and energies spent toward convincing everyone that they're feminist, the word egalitarian has slipped your radar completely.

Feminist is a subset of egalitarian, and if you are egalitarian you are feminist by definition.

By that logic, wouldn't you also have to be a masculinist?

Not necessarily, as masculinist only refers to advocating men's rights, not necessarily equal rights like egalitarianism and feminism.

I agree with CaptStickybeard. You're silly, and I mean the literal definition of it.

@CaptStickybeard: Do you care enough not to click a headline that doesn't strike you as news by your definition though?

Well, @patrickklepek we broke 1600 again.

YOU CREATED THIS MONSTER.

@GaspoweR said:

Well, @patrickklepek we broke 1600 again.

YOU CREATED THIS MONSTER.

And to everyone's surprise, the Internet can not come to an agreement in this comments field.

@Dberg: Nah, we pretty much came to the conclusion that Patrick can do better.

@FierceDeity: must be nice to be so privileged that you can pick and choose what you feel like caring about.

@EnduranceFun: Speak for yourself holmes. You don't get to lump everybody's opinion together like that (nor could you considering the clusterfuck that this comments section has become). And yes I understand that some people (emphasis on some) agree on certain things but you still don't get to act like you are speaking on everybody's behalf.

Filed under "human".

@EnduranceFun said:

@Dberg: Nah, we pretty much came to the conclusion that Patrick can do better.

Your 1,000 posts repeating the same things does not count as "we".

@Roboculus92 said:

@EnduranceFun: Speak for yourself holmes. You don't get to lump everybody's opinion together like that (nor could you considering the clusterfuck that this comments section has become). And yes I understand that some people (emphasis on some) agree on certain things but you still don't get to act like you are speaking on everybody's behalf.

Don't bother. He has come to the conclusion that "we" think his opinion is the firstall and endall of everything and that his words are the only thing that matters.

honestly this is more important than double fine's amnesia fortnight because?.........there isn't an article about amnesia fortnight because?...........

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

Filed under "human".

I like how this...

...is the first image and the primary icon for 'human' on the site.

@jasondesante: Yea because social reform totally doesn't matter and won't have an impact on the future world.

I guess ignorance is still bliss.

@Roboculus92 said:

@EnduranceFun: Speak for yourself holmes. You don't get to lump everybody's opinion together like that (nor could you considering the clusterfuck that this comments section has become). And yes I understand that some people (emphasis on some) agree on certain things but you still don't get to act like you are speaking on everybody's behalf.

The people having an actual discussion and posting meaningful shit came to this conclusion.

Those saying 'gb2 Kotaku lolz' and 'yay Patrick upvote,' I do not figure as part of the discussion.

But yeah, keep imagining that 'Patrick can do better' is somehow not a perfectly adjusted and reasonable consensus. Clearly even mild criticism is just trolling. Not even going to bother replying to that jerk Hellbound.