this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
476 points (93.0% liked)
Games
18324 readers
968 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Using a megaphone" implies he was trying to push an agenda. Being a public figure/entertainer is not well described by the phrase "using a megaphone."
He's deliberately and intentionally inviting the public, yes... to be fucking entertained while he streams a video game. He's not trying to teach them anything, or convince them of anything, or push an agenda.
He had people come into his stream and start talking racist shit and he shut it down. In no way does he have to put up with it just because he is a public figure.
Do you even fucking hear yourself? Saying that being a public figure means you're deliberately asking for harassment and abuse is fucking insane! What the fuck is wrong with you or anyone else who thinks it's okay to hurl abuse at someone just because they're a fucking public figure. And don't fucking tell me you're not saying it's okay, but public figures should "expect it". No. Full stop. Fuck that. By saying they should expect it you're fucking normalizing it and saying it's okay. That's a choice you're making, and it's frankly disgusting.
I already told you. You said the act of being a public figure means you are inviting harassment. If you don't understand how this normalizes harassment, I don't think there's much else to say.
Allow me to quote myself where I a) showed that I read your comment, and b) anticipated your response:
You can't say public figures should expect harassment and are inviting it and then say people who harass them are not absolved. You are absolving them by saying it's expected and invited.
Already did, see above.
You:
In the context of the comment you were responding to? Yes!
Count your downvotes dude. Who is arguing in bad faith? I think you should take a second and go back and read the thread from the beginning from the mindset of someone who doesn't know what's going on in your head.
In case it isn't clear, it sounds like you're belittling harassment to what you want to call a "shit take", and that you think that harassment is basically the fault of the harrassee for doing whatever they do in "public". Maybe that isn't what you meant, but to the rest of us, that's what you said.
You tell me. I've explained what it sounds like you're saying to the rest of us.
Whatever. You asked why I went off on what you said and I'm explaining why. You keep questioning that. If you don't get it, you're obviously obtuse. I'm not the only one who thought what you said was bad. It actually doesn't matter what you said afterwards. What you said was normalizing harassment of people who put there work out in public, and you won't admit it. You just keep saying the same thing over that that isn't what you said. I was the second person to tell you what you said was bad. Many people downvoted you. If you want another opinion, give an LLM the original comment and your response, and ask it how your response could be interpreted. It will probably tell you that you were normalizing harassment.