Who the hell wants to watch other people sing at the opera when you could be singing yourself?

If there's a specific piece of knowledge you want to get, reading the wiki is better. However, if you don't know much about the game and just want to learn as much as possible, watching it being played is far better. Sometimes videos are better even for specific knowledge (think for instance Super Meat Boy levels).

Well, one of the things I like to watch on twitch is Spelunky runs. Every run is different (random levels, don't you know), and the streamer interacts with chat in between levels (sometimes in the middle of levels, if they're reckless). They also have a "death roulette" function, so you can compete in guessing how the streamer will kick it, obviously that's one thing that won't work with prerecorded video.

Same reason people watch other people play sports.

Hell, in most IRC channels, people do exactly what they do in a Twitch chatroom, but they don't even have anything shared to watch!

You sat around playing Civilization 2 and injecting heroin?

Achievement unlocked: Batman gambit.

Ah, the old "I wouldn't be that stupid, would I? So someone must be framing me" defense.

Do you think people aren't seeing that you are just cutting and pasting, without ever responding to anything I write?

Is the joke on me, are you only pretending to be retarded?

Ingress is by far the largest use case/best ad for G+ among people I know. The multi-continent operations people pull off are a testament to how useful G+ can be for sharing plans and coordinating with just the right people.

I find just as dangerous as their Google Plus real name policy.

Come on, that's not remotely comparable. If you're selling stuff in their store, they have a business relationship with you, of course you can't be entirely anonymous.

Google was being pretty hard core about their real name policy on Google+, to the degree that people who Google determined had violated it ended up having their entire Google collection of services canceled.

No, pretty sure that's a myth. The one person I heard about who did get obliterated from all google services, turned out to be an artist who had deliberately tried to push the boundaries for what constitutes child porn or not. That's the sort of thing they do to avoid complicity in crimes, not what they do to push you to use their services.

Listen, words are just words, they can mean different things to different people.

But there are some people who have an individualist attitude to equality. They will say that if a Roma is disallowed from entering a store, that's wrong because people are entitled to be treated as individuals. Even if it's true that Roma on average shoplift like crazy, that particular Roma has a right to be judged as an individual, and unless you caught that particular person stealing you must treat them just like you would treat anyone. Because people can't help what ethnic group they were born into.

Then there are some people who say, no, the problem is that Roma are a historically disadvantaged group. They have been wronged in the past, they deserve our pity, therefore we should be nice to them. That's why discriminating against them is wrong. Some other groups are privileged, and those are totally OK to prejudge as a group. It is groups who are good or bad, Roma just happen to be a good group on account of their historic discrimination, that's all.

I am one of the first type. It is people thinking like the second that I label SJWs. See the problem with them? Note that I do not dispute that Roma have been wronged in the past, and are still wronged I don't even dispute that they deserve pity. But I insist that whether you pity them or not, you meet each and one of them as individuals.

An advantage of my viewpoint, is that if it turns out Roma do shoplift more than other people, that's not a problem for my conclusions. It does not change anything. Whereas SJWs are forced to strenuously deny or excuse anything that casts their supposedly oppressed group in a bad light, I can just say, "so?".

Actual bigots, like the Pegida folks marching in Europe right now, love the SJW logic. They love that it's groups that are good or bad, not people - because that gives them excuses to feel better than they are, and it gives them plenty of avenues to attack muslims, Roma, or whoever the main outgroup is today. It affirms their us-and-them world view. It leads inescapably to the conclusion that segregation is a good idea! And the racists love that conclusion! (and when SJWs demand that white 14-year olds don't get braids, or complain of appropriating culture, they are of course demanding segregation too).

Social justice was originally an ideology from the early 19th century, a competitor to Marxism. Like Marxists, they were biological/social determinists, believing that no one, ever, did anything that wasn't dictated by his circumstances. Like Marxists (and any sane people) they agreed that the living conditions of Britain's urban, working poor were an affront to humanity. Like the Marxists, they were atheists (at least at first, SJ later caught on with Catholics as an alternative to Marxism - and arguably, Quaker and nonconformist religious industrialists were the proto-SJ's until Robert Owen came along).

But where Marxists saw the revolution of the workers as the way out of that mess, SJ people said that's bullshit. The workers are living from hand to mouth, they are slaves of their circumstances, they can't change society, with violence or not. It's up to us, the rich factory owners, to change the social circumstances so that workers can escape poverty, misery and crime. So they built model villages and factory communes. Marx derided that as utopian socialism, which was easy enough as there were plenty of failed efforts to highlight.

Modern "social justice" has almost nothing to do with this. Catholic social justice activists were still primarily fans of paternalistic factories, where the factory owner has a moral responsibility to care for his workers' material and spiritual well-being, but they did do a bit to promote the idea of privilege, i.e. that it can be hard to see things from the disadvantaged's perspective. Modern SJWs, aided by some upper middle-class academics, took that concept and twisted it into unrecognizability, and made it the centerpiece. In their world, privilege means that you're bad and I'm good, and you are totally unable to grasp that with your reason due to your privilege, so you must take it on blind faith and do as I tell you.

If you aren't, go follow a couple of the high-profile ones on twitter and tumblr for a couple of months. That might adjust your view of the world a little.

A social justice warrior is someone who thinks:

1. Has a very particular and narrow view of "social justice" where groups, not individuals, are the only relevant actors, and where there is a set additive hierarchy of oppressed groups.

2. that "we are at war", in other words, that anything is permissible to win.

They think of themselves as the heirs to the civil rights movement and the anti-slavery movement and every righteous movement ever. But those movements tended to reject both 1 and 2. Note that the historical users of the phrase "social justice", mostly catholic activists and positive to paternalistic industry ("utopian socialism", model villages, worker communes etc. etc.), have especially little in common with modern SJWs

Now you're repeating exactly what I replied to with comment #48863757. No, it was not a falsehood, because the media rallied around Quinn largely to protect their own nepotistic behinds. Yes, there were no reviews, but that wasn't the allegation. Yes, the guy wrote many articles giving Zoe and the game publicity.

Do you think you're "drawing fire" by persisting to waste people's time or something? In that case, I'd like to inform you I haven't harassed anyone. So Zoe Quinn is going to get exactly as much (or as little) harassment as she otherwise would, regardless of whether you keep up this nonsense.