Whose goal? And where did you get such an idea? No one is saying that they should stop making CoD or LoL or whatever it is you play.

No ones stopping you from enjoying your games. Why do you think you are being stopped?

we live in a society with "rules and social niceties".

Some people might be aspiea or sociopaths or psychopaths or just be self-absorbed selfish jerks. They might feel those rules are wrong or don't apply to them

But they still do, and people will expect them to follow them.

You can make jokes.... but that doesn't mean there won't be social consequences. You tell racist jokes, you might find people not wanting to hang around with you. You tell a rape joke and people who have been raped or who know those who have. (I know people who have been raped)....will show their displeasure.

Simply put, control your jerkass behavior.

Come on, you know that's not going to happen.

That's not going to happen either.

The 70's rad/separatist feminists, are not all feminists. There's plenty of trans friendly feminists, I know, I'm transgendered myself.

And when you blow someones head off for "not leaving you alone", you get sent to prison for 1st degree murder. Because shooting someone you disagree with who is not physically threating you with bodily harm is a crime.

Define "gamers".

I read some of those articles (which weren't exactly the same) and some of what they were basically saying was:

Those young male gamers that think of themselves as the "real gamers", are actually only a small part of gaming as a whole. They think they own the term, but they're wrong.

That's what they were saying.

There's this subcommunity of " 15 - 25 year old male gamers" that gets their game info from youtubers. Gamergate "personalities" tend to be the sort of guys who do those let's plays and youtube game reviews who go by "nicks" not their real names. So it's "totalbiscuit" says this, or "poopoodie" says that.

What the hell are you talking about?

People like you complaining about "political correctness" and "feminists playing the victims" are idiots, you know why? They get their women confused and can't even spell their names correctly:

It's "Anita Sarkeesian", she doesn't make games. She does videos about tropes in gaming.

The person gamergaters complain about that did make a game was: Zoe Quinn.

Their names are nothing alike.

> First, there is no reason to believe that we can built robots that can reproduce themselves.

What? This is exactly the technology humans are trying to reach! We're already a significant way down this path!!

> Second, there is no evidence that we or anyone else can build intelligent machines, as the original story seems to presuppose.

Nature did it. We can do it.

> Third, biological organisms are so many orders of magnitude more efficient and flexible than machines that it barely makes sense to put them into the same qualitative category "form of life".

This whole conversation is about extrapolating on the cosmic scale. If you look at the path robotics has taken in the last century it does, as pointed out, actually support the premise of this article.

> Hint: A human consumes only about 2.9 kilowatt hours per day, the equivalent of 1-2 light bulbs ...

Not relevant. Once machines are replicating and repairing themselves they'll do exactly what we do and find other sources of energy.

Frankly I agree with you that it's hard to picture Transformers inhabiting the universe, but OP did make a really good point that extrapolation isn't even in the ballpark of refuting this clown. Honestly I'm shocked he didn't come back with that XKCD cartoon.

Aside: what the hell is up with that? Linking to a 15 minute YouTube video that, by definition, takes 15 minutes to sit through, rather than a five page article that can be skimmed in two? And the videos don't even use the medium to show graphics or charts - they're generally just some talking head in front of their computer's webcam. Are the pundits of this new generation illiterate, and can't simply write down what they want to say? Or are they assuming that their audience is illiterate?

Actually, one issued the story and then others responded to it, many of them jumping on the same bandwagon. It's like seeing something in the NYTimes, then subsequently the WaPo saying, "The NYTimes reported X. We believe X'."
I mean, hell, if you're going to call that a conspiracy, then you just issued a similar story, so mark it up to 14.

Those are not inconsistent statements. You believe that the number of sockpuppets was less than 100%. GP says that according to wiki, it's greater than 50%. If it turns out anywhere within that range, it's still bad.

Gosh, you're right, these sure are harassing tweets:

I'm sure the FBI will be cracking down on Wu any day now.