I've never understood those people who say "video game system 'power' doesn't matter, only the games are important." If that were true, we'd all still be playing the original Game Boy. It's like this weird creed, and if you don't agree with it you get called a "graphics whore" (how is liking graphics technology a bad thing? Who knows)-- notice how Andrew Reiner quickly backpedaled in his own thread: "Oh yeah, the games are everything!!!"

I love how in the interview shown in this Mark Dice video, the interviewer references one of Soph's works (but is too cowardly to call her by name), where she is wearing a Muslim get-up in the thumbnail, saying that the "author" (Soph) was "spewing anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and homophobic hate..." Hey, douchebag: the video was about tech censorship, not Muslims-- did you even watch it? Thanks for proving her right!

I don't like using coarse language, but I'm sick to death of these people. If you are a pure, unadulterated ideologue who is trying to get people banned without even listening to or offering rebuttal to their content, then "douchebag" is the only word I can use for you.

Incidentally, I did think it was hilarious that the New York Times picked Molyneux as the face to show several times in the montage. They couldn't have picked a funnier person, because out of anyone, all Molyneux does is state facts, offer reasonable theories based on those facts, and openly debate people who disagree with him-- changing his opinions where he's found he's wrong. What a crazy, self-defeating person to pick as the primary straw man!

I also like how the article describes... what, I'm not sure, the "far right", whatever that even means... as being a "soap opera" with a parade of villains, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, the very article itself reads like a melodramatic soap opera, parading villains in a montage picture! Zero self-awareness, as usual.

EDIT: I've since read the article, and I see that they used Molyneux because the dude watched a lot of Molyneux's videos.