Brianna Wu / John Walker Flynt - "Biggest Victim of Gamergate," Failed Game Developer, Failed Congressional Candidate

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
See guys? Trump IS making America great again!
Also Bri, you're not part of any of those groups you just listed. Stop saying "we".

View attachment 391724

You're right John, drumpf certainly woke up a force to be reckoned with. Just as soon as theyre done playing with therapy play dough and soft play rooms.

Hell you never know, come 2020 they might have mustered up enough energy to turn the US into one big Chuck E Cheese.
 
But John don't you #SupportTransCandidates, or are you just using the platform to advance your own cynical aims? You are literally murdering them!!!

View attachment 391649
What a non-answer answer. Maybe she is a real politician after all.

They tried borking USB drives on a system level before the Manning incident due to malware infiltrations. They backtracked after it turns out administering and working on a massive government computer network is impossible without removable storage. USB drives are disabled on a per-user basis though.
 
Uhh, yes Brianna, that's why websites like 4chan require you to be 18 years or older to access. And since when was Gamergate a social media? Is it invite only?

GAMERGAAAAAAAAAATE_Part2ElectricTroonaloo.PNG
 
Uhh, yes Brianna, that's why websites like 4chan require you to be 18 years or older to access. And since when was Gamergate a social media? Is it invite only?

View attachment 391758

Hey Warren? If you’re reading this and not totally high,do a quick search of Brianna’s Twotter. Until last year, she said GamerGaters were sexist BernieBros who couldn’t handle Hillary.
 
Uhh, yes Brianna, that's why websites like 4chan require you to be 18 years or older to access. And since when was Gamergate a social media? Is it invite only?

View attachment 391758

It's a bit strange how Wu & Co can bang their drum and scream about privacy on the internet, encryption and keeping Big Fed out of everyone's business and in the next breath scream about the FBI not wiretapping and unmasking internet users for saying mean things on the internet. Isn't Wu also against anonymous postings on the internet and free speech in general? It's almost like there's no thought or reason supporting his opinions...
 
Quick question, what is Wu's private account name again? I know it's protected but I'm trying to remember. Unless of course she deleted it in which case ignore this message.
 
Considering that most of what I know about poly relationships comes from Kyle's thread, I'd say that's just about all of the fucking information I need to conclude that it's as degenerate as it sounds.

Maybe I'm being judgemental, but I've never, ever heard of anyone in a polyamorous relationship where it wasn't a seriously exploitative tactic on the part of the person proposing it. The Bex thread is a good example too.

You read the occasional article in the newspaper where some sadsack journo forces a smile on his face and writes the required "woke" article about how he and his wife are in an open relationship and he's fine with it.... Except he's not really exercising the freedom, he really doesn't like to hear about his wife's other partners, he's definitely uncomfortable if they ever meet and it makes things awkward with regards having sex with her himself... in fact they've mostly stopped having sex. But it's fine, you guys, it's a great lifestyle!

Then they split up about 1-2 years later after having dragged the relationship on long past the point where they should have divorced already. Maybe there are some people it works for, but I think they must be keeping it to themselves.
 
Maybe I'm being judgemental, but I've never, ever heard of anyone in a polyamorous relationship where it wasn't a seriously exploitative tactic on the part of the person proposing it. The Bex thread is a good example too.

You read the occasional article in the newspaper where some sadsack journo forces a smile on his face and writes the required "woke" article about how he and his wife are in an open relationship and he's fine with it.... Except he's not really exercising the freedom, he really doesn't like to hear about his wife's other partners, he's definitely uncomfortable if they ever meet and it makes things awkward with regards having sex with her himself... in fact they've mostly stopped having sex. But it's fine, you guys, it's a great lifestyle!

Then they split up about 1-2 years later after having dragged the relationship on long past the point where they should have divorced already. Maybe there are some people it works for, but I think they must be keeping it to themselves.
Same. I met some people a while ago when I was younger who were part of some poly community, and I got to hear secondhand how drama eventually split every one of them up. Maybe exploitative isn't the word I'd think of, but rather hipsters who are trying to pretend they're oh so bohemian and progressive, right up until the drama kills it and they make up an excuse for why it didn't work.
 
I'll do one better-there's no such thing as an important RPG. Maybe, fucking MAYBE, something like Planescape Torment which has a few things to say about the nature of immortality and belief, could be important. RPGs are great stories, sure, but important? Probably not. Nobody turned their life around because they played Chrono Trigger.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that pretty much any time an RPG has had a discernable effect on someone's life it's been negative.
 
Is it even legal to get signatures using a line like that?

The way Brianna has written that tweet, it makes it look like people are thinking they are signing a petition for increased funding for the MBTA. Most MBTA users will be on board with that and sign on.

But they aren't signing on for increased funding for the MBTA, they are providing signatures for an idiot to get on a ballot.
 
Back
Top Bottom