News post is about where I'd imagine it should be. They don't consider this political, and like a lot of people thought; that video games were in the conversation instead of literally any other thing just shows how little the current american leadership wants to do about this issue.
I don't really consider it political either. If Obama had said the same thing I could see them doing pretty much the same comic with him.
The fact that Trump is already widely mocked for incompetence is hardly their fault.
I want to say Obama did kind of get shit for his at the very least video game ignorant view on things. But the worst he said of them was that you should put them down every once in a while.
And like in a sane world we could look into more if violent media and games and such contribute to a violent attitude in society or are a factor. But that would be if we had already dealt with clear fucking indicators that lead to shooters like hate groups and domestic abusers and the ridiculously open way our gun laws are currently written nationally.
Like I'm sure Gabe and Tycho wouldn't haven an issue about violent games being a topic if like it were harder to buy an AR-15 than it is to buy Doom 2016.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The comic is absolutely political, in that it's talking about a political subject.
It isn't a political comic, which is a particular style, and it isn't implying greater scope than disagreement with the president over his views on games, and it isn't implying alignment to a party (since both parties have had their shot in this arena) but it's still political.
milski on
I ate an engineer
+7
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
if it was a political comic it would have a lot more labeled inanimate objects
Video games blamed again, just like they were 15-20 years ago.
Or rap/rock music 30 years ago.
Heck, I'm old enough to remember when people wanted to ban Bugs Bunny because of fears that kids would emulate Wile E. Coyote and jump off a cliff and think they wouldn't get hurt.
You cannot make this stuff up. :-(
Anyone who relates video games to shootings should be forced to write Bayes' Theorem on a blackboard 5000 times, minimum.
It's quite telling to see all the people going "Hey, wait, don't bring politics into it!"
I remember when Mortal Kombat and Doom were considered to be the harbingers of the decline of Western Civilization. The aftermath of Columbine, and the rise of people like Jack Thompson. When games were - with pearl-clutching seriousness - labeled as 'murder simulators'.
And unlike gangsta rap, and before it, heavy metal, games have never really shed the label of being the cause of violence for angry young men. Because the people playing Candy Crush, and Angry Birds, and whatever else don't view themselves as being the same kind of people as those other gamers. So, to many, games - especially the violent ones - are dangerous, and the people playing them moreso. And the more that idea is given the trappings of legitimacy (and, even though Trump is an idiot clown, the office he holds hasn't been so tarnished that people don't take notice of these kinds of things), the more political our hobby (lifestyle?) becomes. The more people on the outside will wonder if one's choice of games says something about their real life attitudes and makeup.
So, politics has been a part of it for at least the last 20 years. And it's not going away any time soon. Not when people in power - regardless of political affiliation - are looking for a convenient scapegoat to blame much larger societal issues on.
Hands are too big. Hand skin tone matches face skin tone. No nightmarish pale circles around eyes where the spray tan missed. Should have Russian flag instead of American flag.
It's quite telling to see all the people going "Hey, wait, don't bring politics into it!"
I remember when Mortal Kombat and Doom were considered to be the harbingers of the decline of Western Civilization. The aftermath of Columbine, and the rise of people like Jack Thompson. When games were - with pearl-clutching seriousness - labeled as 'murder simulators'.
And unlike gangsta rap, and before it, heavy metal, games have never really shed the label of being the cause of violence for angry young men. Because the people playing Candy Crush, and Angry Birds, and whatever else don't view themselves as being the same kind of people as those other gamers. So, to many, games - especially the violent ones - are dangerous, and the people playing them moreso. And the more that idea is given the trappings of legitimacy (and, even though Trump is an idiot clown, the office he holds hasn't been so tarnished that people don't take notice of these kinds of things), the more political our hobby (lifestyle?) becomes. The more people on the outside will wonder if one's choice of games says something about their real life attitudes and makeup.
So, politics has been a part of it for at least the last 20 years. And it's not going away any time soon. Not when people in power - regardless of political affiliation - are looking for a convenient scapegoat to blame much larger societal issues on.
I think the bolded is pretty much exactly backwards. People who play casual games have been mocked by "real gamers" far more than the reverse; it's kind of a huge cultural gatekeeping problem. I also sort of disagree with the idea that games haven't shed the label of being a cause of violence; after the 90s it mostly died down; it's just that Trump's views are probably locked back there.
That isn't to say that games aren't being used as a scapegoat, but that I think it's kind of inaccurate to paint this as "real gamers" being under constant siege forever by hordes of casuals. And, quite frankly, identifying as a "gamer", especially as if its a "lifestyle", is not something I like to do even though I play a fuckton of videogames because of how often "gamer" movements as a whole tend to be pretty awful.
It's quite telling to see all the people going "Hey, wait, don't bring politics into it!"
I remember when Mortal Kombat and Doom were considered to be the harbingers of the decline of Western Civilization. The aftermath of Columbine, and the rise of people like Jack Thompson. When games were - with pearl-clutching seriousness - labeled as 'murder simulators'.
And unlike gangsta rap, and before it, heavy metal, games have never really shed the label of being the cause of violence for angry young men. Because the people playing Candy Crush, and Angry Birds, and whatever else don't view themselves as being the same kind of people as those other gamers. So, to many, games - especially the violent ones - are dangerous, and the people playing them moreso. And the more that idea is given the trappings of legitimacy (and, even though Trump is an idiot clown, the office he holds hasn't been so tarnished that people don't take notice of these kinds of things), the more political our hobby (lifestyle?) becomes. The more people on the outside will wonder if one's choice of games says something about their real life attitudes and makeup.
So, politics has been a part of it for at least the last 20 years. And it's not going away any time soon. Not when people in power - regardless of political affiliation - are looking for a convenient scapegoat to blame much larger societal issues on.
I think the bolded is pretty much exactly backwards. People who play casual games have been mocked by "real gamers" far more than the reverse; it's kind of a huge cultural gatekeeping problem. I also sort of disagree with the idea that games haven't shed the label of being a cause of violence; after the 90s it mostly died down; it's just that Trump's views are probably locked back there.
That isn't to say that games aren't being used as a scapegoat, but that I think it's kind of inaccurate to paint this as "real gamers" being under constant siege forever by hordes of casuals. And, quite frankly, identifying as a "gamer", especially as if its a "lifestyle", is not something I like to do even though I play a fuckton of videogames because of how often "gamer" movements as a whole tend to be pretty awful.
I'm not saying I subscribe to the idea of gaming being a lifestyle myself. But one cannot deny that many people do. A lot of the GG idiocy stemmed from people feeling personally threatened because other people dared to say "Hey, some of the things prevalent in modern games (depiction of women, violence, etc.) is concerning if you actually think about it."
Regarding gatekeeping, and people playing casual games being mocked by 'real' gamers, I think it's a feedback loop. Hardcore gamers (again) feel threatened by those they see moving into their territory, so they harass them largely to drive them out. The harassed people then view those hardcore people as being different than them in a negative way. Sub-cultural purity is maintained, at the cost of exclusion and a self-consuming "No True Scotsman" outlook. So, yeah... gatekeeping doesn't just happen with those not allowed in just shrugging and moving on. Opinions are formed due to remembered experiences.
Keep in mind - I consider myself a casual gamer. I generally hate anything that requires a real grind, and I find a lot of popular games (especially shooters) to be painfully boring. Outside of these forums, I don't really talk about games to anyone else. So, I'm definitely not sitting here complaining about filthy casuals ruining my fun, or ganging up on me, or anything else.
What I'm trying to say, instead, is that there's a reason why the idea of games causing violence is an idea that hasn't actually died yet. No one is asking about the music these angry young men listen to, or what shows/movies they like, or what books they read. Instead, it's always what websites they visit (especially if it's terrorism-adjacent) and what games they play. And, from where I sit, it's not just because it's easy (the meme of the angry man living in his mother's basement is still prevalent in popular culture), but because it's also hypocritical. The gatekeeping you mentioned, like I said, leads to exclusion/division.
Put more clearly: a lot of the people agreeing that games are a problem play games themselves. That they see themselves as being different than these young men is a problem in and of itself, and it's something I hardly see mentioned. There seems to be this idea that a person playing PUBG, or GTA, or anything else with guns, explosions, death, etc. is significantly different than a person playing Tetris, Solitaire, or some free-to-play game on their phone. And I take issue with it, even if it may be a self-inflicted wound on gaming-as-a-hobby on the whole.
One of the things (among dozens) I have liked about you guys is that you stayed away from politics unlike other cartoonists (cough Kurtz cough). I read comic strips to stay away from politics. If I want this kind of garbage I'll go to r/politics.
angry that the video game comic is talking about people trying to blame video games
It's quite telling to see all the people going "Hey, wait, don't bring politics into it!"
It's a bit scary, too. Those same people, years ago, would have laughed at the strips mocking Jack Thompson, and would have congratulated PA (or any comic) for defending their hobby against the false claims that videogames are training us to kill.
But those other ridiculous public figures didn't have literal worshippers.
It's a problem that we now yell "don't bring politics" into a bipartisan issue because of which idiot is being an idiot this time. People are acting against their own interests out of lunacy.
One of the things (among dozens) I have liked about you guys is that you stayed away from politics unlike other cartoonists (cough Kurtz cough). I read comic strips to stay away from politics. If I want this kind of garbage I'll go to r/politics.
It's quite telling to see all the people going "Hey, wait, don't bring politics into it!"
It's a bit scary, too. Those same people, years ago, would have laughed at the strips mocking Jack Thompson, and would have congratulated PA (or any comic) for defending their hobby against the false claims that videogames are training us to kill.
But those other ridiculous public figures didn't have literal worshippers.
It's a problem that we now yell "don't bring politics" into a bipartisan issue because of which idiot is being an idiot this time. People are acting against their own interests out of lunacy.
Literally everyone hated Thompson except himself and a handful of watchdogs. Trump on the other hand has a pretty big following in the part of the gaming fandom we all try our best to ignore. For them to have their hero who was going to save them from all the mean girls and minorities invading video games speak out against it must be a hell of a bitter pill to swallow. Worst case scenario, if Trump manages to get violent games banned or ban sale to minors or whatever the end game here is, I'm curious about what that would do for his support in those circles.
Wouldn't that be thrown away as a violation of the 1st amendment, like it had in California in the past, though?
Probably, but it's not an impossible outcome. If Trump wants it enough, there's always the chance of it happening, though I doubt it's a hill he cares about dying on.
You already can't sell violent games to minors, right? Virtually every shooter is rated M, and I'd assume most stores have a policy not to sell those without ID. Obviously policies are made to ignore and parents buy most games for teens anyway, but there's really nothing more you can add legislation-wise.
But politicians don't aim to enact actual impactful legislation. They wring their hands and defame their scapegoat so it looks like they are earning their keep. Some meaningless bill might get passed but it'll be an empty gesture.
What conversations like this can and do threaten us with is games' esteem in the court of public opinion. SWAT isn't coming for your games. But the mom you work with, who would otherwise find you a decent fellow, may well treat you differently when she sees your COD shirt and remembers what CNN and FOX told her about you.
You already can't sell violent games to minors, right? Virtually every shooter is rated M, and I'd assume most stores have a policy not to sell those without ID. Obviously policies are made to ignore and parents buy most games for teens anyway, but there's really nothing more you can add legislation-wise.
But politicians don't aim to enact actual impactful legislation. They wring their hands and defame their scapegoat so it looks like they are earning their keep. Some meaningless bill might get passed but it'll be an empty gesture.
What conversations like this can and do threaten us with is games' esteem in the court of public opinion. SWAT isn't coming for your games. But the mom you work with, who would otherwise find you a decent fellow, may well treat you differently when she sees your COD shirt and remembers what CNN and FOX told her about you.
The thing is, I do belive violent games have some influence on the people who play them, it's just that it's blown way out of proportion. Violent games dont create violent people, it ATTRACTS them, like all other violent media, and even if you somehow managed to remove all forms of violent media, you'd still have angry, disenfranchised people creating their own.
+3
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
You already can't sell violent games to minors, right? Virtually every shooter is rated M, and I'd assume most stores have a policy not to sell those without ID. Obviously policies are made to ignore and parents buy most games for teens anyway, but there's really nothing more you can add legislation-wise.
But politicians don't aim to enact actual impactful legislation. They wring their hands and defame their scapegoat so it looks like they are earning their keep. Some meaningless bill might get passed but it'll be an empty gesture.
What conversations like this can and do threaten us with is games' esteem in the court of public opinion. SWAT isn't coming for your games. But the mom you work with, who would otherwise find you a decent fellow, may well treat you differently when she sees your COD shirt and remembers what CNN and FOX told her about you.
There is a distressingly large number of politicians and political media willing to feed divisiveness and cultivate insular communities based around issues they have no intention of seriously trying to do anything about, merely for their own advancement and/or profit. If the establishment republicans (after Trump ran away with the primaries) and Tories (after the Brexit referendum) only learn one thing from this time period, it should be the danger inherent to this kind of brinkmanship; that it will eventually force them to either follow-through, or play ball with whichever shameless self-promoting loony will.
You already can't sell violent games to minors, right? Virtually every shooter is rated M, and I'd assume most stores have a policy not to sell those without ID. Obviously policies are made to ignore and parents buy most games for teens anyway, but there's really nothing more you can add legislation-wise.
Kind of. ESRB ratings do not have weight of law, the whole thing in California a few years back was largely about that.
Stores can set policies on all kinds of things though - most theaters have a policy of not letting minors into R rated movies, or at least not allowing them in unescorted, most game retailers have a policy of enforcing age guidelines. Music advisories are somewhat less enforced in my experience, but at least some places pay attention to them. It doesn't mean such policies are universal, or even uniformly enforced where they exist, they're largely a token effort to prevent real regulatory action from becoming a thing.
Remember the Angry Birds is about how the foreign enemies come into your lands and steal your children. Then you fire weapons of mass destruction to take them out.
Remember the Angry Birds is about how the foreign enemies come into your lands and steal your children. Then you launch righteously indignant suicide bombers to take them out.
Rated E for Everyone.
Arguably your original description was already sugarcoating it!
I can only imagine that Gamergaters are outraged at Trump for his baseless attacks on their beloved artform. They must be vocally furious.
*cricket cricket*
Yeah, I wish it was that easy to scrape someone off thier favorite demagogue. Unfortunately it takes repeated, sustained betrayal for people to change thier minds after being true believers, and often it doesn't even happen then.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
It makes me sad too. Where do you work that allows COD T-shirts? Establish some kind of baseline professional dress code, people!
Maybe it's a company picnic or something.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited March 2018
My current workplace has no dress code that I know of. I could totally wear my mass effect t-shirts if I wanted (I don't want).
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
OctoberRavenPlays fighting games for the storySkyeline Hotel Apartment 4ARegistered Userregular
[sarc]
Video games do influence your personality. Just last week I spent four hours aimlessly wandering around my house to find out my sister is running away from home with her girlfriend.
And I'm an only child!
[/sarc]
Currently Most Hype For: VTMB2, Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, Alan Wake 2 (Wake Harder)Currently Playin: Guilty Gear XX AC+R, Gat Out Of Hell
I know I'm a bit off topic with this, but reading through the comments here made me realize that I don't really get the whole "gamer" label. Gaming is mainstream and I wouldn't be surprised by anyone under 60 telling me that they play video games (and not very surprised by anyone over 60 either).
It just seems like a weird identity to worry about people knowing about, either as a pro or con. It would be like going around and telling people that I'm a Netflixer because I think I'm that rare person who enjoys watching media on there service.
I know I'm a bit off topic with this, but reading through the comments here made me realize that I don't really get the whole "gamer" label. Gaming is mainstream and I wouldn't be surprised by anyone under 60 telling me that they play video games (and not very surprised by anyone over 60 either).
It just seems like a weird identity to worry about people knowing about, either as a pro or con. It would be like going around and telling people that I'm a Netflixer because I think I'm that rare person who enjoys watching media on there service.
I don't think it's quite all the way mainstream like that yet. As we can see from the subject of this strip, it's still a more acceptable target than other forms of media.
Posts
I want to say Obama did kind of get shit for his at the very least video game ignorant view on things. But the worst he said of them was that you should put them down every once in a while.
And like in a sane world we could look into more if violent media and games and such contribute to a violent attitude in society or are a factor. But that would be if we had already dealt with clear fucking indicators that lead to shooters like hate groups and domestic abusers and the ridiculously open way our gun laws are currently written nationally.
Like I'm sure Gabe and Tycho wouldn't haven an issue about violent games being a topic if like it were harder to buy an AR-15 than it is to buy Doom 2016.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It isn't a political comic, which is a particular style, and it isn't implying greater scope than disagreement with the president over his views on games, and it isn't implying alignment to a party (since both parties have had their shot in this arena) but it's still political.
Are you suggesting they should have written "Trump" on his forehead?
Yeah, it's about that time again.
Video games blamed again, just like they were 15-20 years ago.
Or rap/rock music 30 years ago.
Heck, I'm old enough to remember when people wanted to ban Bugs Bunny because of fears that kids would emulate Wile E. Coyote and jump off a cliff and think they wouldn't get hurt.
You cannot make this stuff up. :-(
Anyone who relates video games to shootings should be forced to write Bayes' Theorem on a blackboard 5000 times, minimum.
I remember when Mortal Kombat and Doom were considered to be the harbingers of the decline of Western Civilization. The aftermath of Columbine, and the rise of people like Jack Thompson. When games were - with pearl-clutching seriousness - labeled as 'murder simulators'.
And unlike gangsta rap, and before it, heavy metal, games have never really shed the label of being the cause of violence for angry young men. Because the people playing Candy Crush, and Angry Birds, and whatever else don't view themselves as being the same kind of people as those other gamers. So, to many, games - especially the violent ones - are dangerous, and the people playing them moreso. And the more that idea is given the trappings of legitimacy (and, even though Trump is an idiot clown, the office he holds hasn't been so tarnished that people don't take notice of these kinds of things), the more political our hobby (lifestyle?) becomes. The more people on the outside will wonder if one's choice of games says something about their real life attitudes and makeup.
So, politics has been a part of it for at least the last 20 years. And it's not going away any time soon. Not when people in power - regardless of political affiliation - are looking for a convenient scapegoat to blame much larger societal issues on.
I think the bolded is pretty much exactly backwards. People who play casual games have been mocked by "real gamers" far more than the reverse; it's kind of a huge cultural gatekeeping problem. I also sort of disagree with the idea that games haven't shed the label of being a cause of violence; after the 90s it mostly died down; it's just that Trump's views are probably locked back there.
That isn't to say that games aren't being used as a scapegoat, but that I think it's kind of inaccurate to paint this as "real gamers" being under constant siege forever by hordes of casuals. And, quite frankly, identifying as a "gamer", especially as if its a "lifestyle", is not something I like to do even though I play a fuckton of videogames because of how often "gamer" movements as a whole tend to be pretty awful.
I'm not saying I subscribe to the idea of gaming being a lifestyle myself. But one cannot deny that many people do. A lot of the GG idiocy stemmed from people feeling personally threatened because other people dared to say "Hey, some of the things prevalent in modern games (depiction of women, violence, etc.) is concerning if you actually think about it."
Regarding gatekeeping, and people playing casual games being mocked by 'real' gamers, I think it's a feedback loop. Hardcore gamers (again) feel threatened by those they see moving into their territory, so they harass them largely to drive them out. The harassed people then view those hardcore people as being different than them in a negative way. Sub-cultural purity is maintained, at the cost of exclusion and a self-consuming "No True Scotsman" outlook. So, yeah... gatekeeping doesn't just happen with those not allowed in just shrugging and moving on. Opinions are formed due to remembered experiences.
Keep in mind - I consider myself a casual gamer. I generally hate anything that requires a real grind, and I find a lot of popular games (especially shooters) to be painfully boring. Outside of these forums, I don't really talk about games to anyone else. So, I'm definitely not sitting here complaining about filthy casuals ruining my fun, or ganging up on me, or anything else.
What I'm trying to say, instead, is that there's a reason why the idea of games causing violence is an idea that hasn't actually died yet. No one is asking about the music these angry young men listen to, or what shows/movies they like, or what books they read. Instead, it's always what websites they visit (especially if it's terrorism-adjacent) and what games they play. And, from where I sit, it's not just because it's easy (the meme of the angry man living in his mother's basement is still prevalent in popular culture), but because it's also hypocritical. The gatekeeping you mentioned, like I said, leads to exclusion/division.
Put more clearly: a lot of the people agreeing that games are a problem play games themselves. That they see themselves as being different than these young men is a problem in and of itself, and it's something I hardly see mentioned. There seems to be this idea that a person playing PUBG, or GTA, or anything else with guns, explosions, death, etc. is significantly different than a person playing Tetris, Solitaire, or some free-to-play game on their phone. And I take issue with it, even if it may be a self-inflicted wound on gaming-as-a-hobby on the whole.
But, that's just my $0.02.
angry that the video game comic is talking about people trying to blame video games
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
It's a bit scary, too. Those same people, years ago, would have laughed at the strips mocking Jack Thompson, and would have congratulated PA (or any comic) for defending their hobby against the false claims that videogames are training us to kill.
But those other ridiculous public figures didn't have literal worshippers.
It's a problem that we now yell "don't bring politics" into a bipartisan issue because of which idiot is being an idiot this time. People are acting against their own interests out of lunacy.
You must be new here. Welcome to Penny Arcade!
Steam: TimIsOnSteam
Battle.net: TimIsOnBnet#1745
Switch: SW-7012-4788-7410
PSN: TimIsOnTheNet
Literally everyone hated Thompson except himself and a handful of watchdogs. Trump on the other hand has a pretty big following in the part of the gaming fandom we all try our best to ignore. For them to have their hero who was going to save them from all the mean girls and minorities invading video games speak out against it must be a hell of a bitter pill to swallow. Worst case scenario, if Trump manages to get violent games banned or ban sale to minors or whatever the end game here is, I'm curious about what that would do for his support in those circles.
Probably, but it's not an impossible outcome. If Trump wants it enough, there's always the chance of it happening, though I doubt it's a hill he cares about dying on.
But politicians don't aim to enact actual impactful legislation. They wring their hands and defame their scapegoat so it looks like they are earning their keep. Some meaningless bill might get passed but it'll be an empty gesture.
What conversations like this can and do threaten us with is games' esteem in the court of public opinion. SWAT isn't coming for your games. But the mom you work with, who would otherwise find you a decent fellow, may well treat you differently when she sees your COD shirt and remembers what CNN and FOX told her about you.
That doesn't parse as rabies to me. Rabies would be foam, whereas it just looks like spittle in the comic. It reads as slovenly and ignorant to me.
The thing is, I do belive violent games have some influence on the people who play them, it's just that it's blown way out of proportion. Violent games dont create violent people, it ATTRACTS them, like all other violent media, and even if you somehow managed to remove all forms of violent media, you'd still have angry, disenfranchised people creating their own.
There is a distressingly large number of politicians and political media willing to feed divisiveness and cultivate insular communities based around issues they have no intention of seriously trying to do anything about, merely for their own advancement and/or profit. If the establishment republicans (after Trump ran away with the primaries) and Tories (after the Brexit referendum) only learn one thing from this time period, it should be the danger inherent to this kind of brinkmanship; that it will eventually force them to either follow-through, or play ball with whichever shameless self-promoting loony will.
The rivers of blood bit? Yeah, it's pretty dark, but it's par for the course
friday criticized trump and gun violence.
i welcome Mike and Jerry's sudden SJW galaxy brain evolution. maybe they learned to listen after years of tone deafness.
Well apparently no matter what they do, they'll have atleast one side yelling at them. Remember the whole Dickwolves thing?
Kind of. ESRB ratings do not have weight of law, the whole thing in California a few years back was largely about that.
Stores can set policies on all kinds of things though - most theaters have a policy of not letting minors into R rated movies, or at least not allowing them in unescorted, most game retailers have a policy of enforcing age guidelines. Music advisories are somewhat less enforced in my experience, but at least some places pay attention to them. It doesn't mean such policies are universal, or even uniformly enforced where they exist, they're largely a token effort to prevent real regulatory action from becoming a thing.
On those two specific matters (pua garbage game and violent games), that's always been their position, though.
*cricket cricket*
Rated E for Everyone.
Arguably your original description was already sugarcoating it!
It makes me sad too. Where do you work that allows COD T-shirts? Establish some kind of baseline professional dress code, people!
I wonder if the guy who made Hatred voted for Trump...
Yeah, I wish it was that easy to scrape someone off thier favorite demagogue. Unfortunately it takes repeated, sustained betrayal for people to change thier minds after being true believers, and often it doesn't even happen then.
Maybe it's a company picnic or something.
Video games do influence your personality. Just last week I spent four hours aimlessly wandering around my house to find out my sister is running away from home with her girlfriend.
And I'm an only child!
[/sarc]
It just seems like a weird identity to worry about people knowing about, either as a pro or con. It would be like going around and telling people that I'm a Netflixer because I think I'm that rare person who enjoys watching media on there service.