I had to google this to have any idea what it was about. The linked release notes don't explain any of the background, the entirety of the content relevant to the headline is this:
"I've only just tested this and I'm still in disbelief, but it looks like Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in Oculus Runtime 1.5. As such I've reverted the DRM patch and removed all binaries from previous releases that contained the patch."
Apparently Oculus was testing for a present oculus headset in its runtime, so it was difficult for a third-party devs to build shims to connect other VR hardware to it and enjoy VR games built for oculus.
There were two functions, one that checked whether the occulus headset was connected, and one DRM function. Occulus consolidated those functions into one, in what many assumed to be a move to be able to justify taking down projects like these under the guise of "they break our DRM", which did end up being a talking point against the projects later on.
Apparently they reversed this change now, and you can write a compatibility shim without breaking the DRM once more
Content has almost always sold hardware in the video game industry. Look at all of the exclusive content for Nintendo consoles. Or how many people bought XBox's for the sole purpose of playing Halo.
Sure, most VR hardware options may technically be peripherals for PCs, but at a cost of several hundred dollars or more, it isn't in the same category as PC mouses or joysticks. The way I see it, VR hardware is essentially a standalone device that connects to PCs, simply so that many people won't need to buy that too, saving them $1k-2k.
Creating exclusive games and buying exclusive content licensing/distribution rights for any gaming platform, especially ones in stiff competition for early adopters and the lion's share of a new market, is a great business decision. If Oculus hadn't secured exclusive content, people would have simply bought whichever hardware worked better, or shipped first. In this case, most people would have likely bought the Vive. Oculus knew that superior content is the tie-breaker and can even overshadow slight technological shortcomings, if they exist.
Oculus should never have reversed their plans to keep the content exclusive. Now, many people will just buy Vives and use them to play Oculus-subsidized content. Oculus could have created a great monopoly. Now I suspect they will have serious difficulty building a sustainable business. Peter Thiel is on Facebook's board and Marc Andreessen is on both Facebook's and Oculus's board. I can't imagine either one would support reversing the decision to make exclusive content.
- hardware exclusives may be a better business model, but consumers (at least a vocal subset) clearly don't like them
- Microsoft seems to be moving towards having all Xbox games run on pc so console exclusives may be on their last legs
- the vr market is relatively tiny, so splitting it up with exclusives will make it harder for devs to justify making content
- game margins are much higher than vr hardware, and do it may be better to have store exclusives rather than hardware (something steam is doing without the backlash)
VR is effectively a better monitor. The cutting edge monitors also go for hundreds of dollars. Do you agree that monitors should also have proprietary ports that refuse to play non-licensed games or content?
"Creating exclusive games and buying exclusive content licensing/distribution rights for any gaming platform, especially ones in stiff competition for early adopters and the lion's share of a new market, is a great business decision. If Oculus hadn't secured exclusive content, people would have simply bought whichever hardware worked better, or shipped first."
Good for Oculus, but as you point out, bad for consumers who might prefer another vendor's possibly superior hardware.
I don't really understand the motivation behind excoriating companies for taking indisputably pro-consumer actions. Pointing out the potential concerns is one thing, but you seem to be genuinely annoyed that Oculus has chosen not to act like jerks in this matter. Do you have Facebook stock? Are you playing devil's advocate?
> Sure, most VR hardware options may technically be peripherals for PCs, but at a cost of several hundred dollars or more, it isn't in the same category as PC mouses or joysticks.
But in exactly the same segment as video cards, and you won't see too many games publishers stupid enough to refuse to run their games on unapproved video cards.
The PC gaming market is different from the console market. PC gamers spend a lot more on their hardware, and in return ask for platform openness and very long backwards compatibility.
Dividing the market would definitely cause prospective consumers to wait for market stabilization. It is a risk bigger than the risk posed by competitors.
They deserved the backlash for implementing it, and I hope the Rift continues to suffer now that people know Facebook's true intentions. Not to mention how poorly they treated early supporters after the buyout, e.g. stocking Rifts on retail shelves before they'd fulfilled orders for all backers, then telling backers who complained to get a refund and go buy one from a store...
They're only doing the "right" thing because they have no choice. They couldn't pump enough money into third party development to make up for the ill will they'd garnered with this exclusivity DRM, especially not with companies like Valve doing the complete opposite -- giving money to third party devs with no exclusivity deals whatsoever.
Turns out some developers can't be bought[1]. Who'da thunk it?
I never got the quest for punishment for actions like this.
They did something bad, the community reacted negatively. If they fix the problem, rewarding them is going to make sure it sticks around.
Continuing to "punish" them for something they fixed only sends the message that the fix was pointless and that it would have been better to ignore the problem like so many other companies (including Facebook themselves) do.
Not to mention how poorly they treated early supporters after the buyout
You're kidding right? Oculus was very generous to early supporters. Name one other Kickstarter project that shipped backers the full retail version of the finished product in addition to their original purchase.
Yeah there was a slight delay, but really, original backers came out pretty good on the deal.
Disclosure: I was an early backer. My free retail Rift arrived a couple of weeks ago, and I'm happy.
I don't understand the exclusivity outrage. It seems entirely fair to me for a platform holder to expect something in return for funding development of a game.
Consoles have had exclusives since time immemorial and no one seems to bat an eye when it happens. What makes this case special?
> Especially not with companies like Valve doing the complete opposite giving money to third party devs with no exclusivity deals whatsoever.
Valve forces devs that take their money to have their game on Steam until they have paid back the loan. That's not exclusivity but it's also not no-strings. Valve has an agenda just like Oculus.
> stocking Rifts on retail shelves before they'd fulfilled orders for all backers
That I'm not so annoyed with. Their retail contracts would have had set due dates with penalties for breaching them. The backer headsets were giveaways right? They weren't promised when they originally ran the Kickstarter as I recall.
People who care about this stuff are a tiny fraction of the market that oculus is going for. I don't think the vast majority of potential VR customers have even heard of VR yet, let alone are following the valve/oculus nonsense.
I bought the Dev Kit 1, but with the move to include DRM, combined with the fact that the Vive seems to better in every way except for Audio, I really don't see myself buying the retail Rift.
Because there was backlash. But I doubt Facebook changed its original intentions of locking down the platform. What happens if Oculus Rift takes 80% of the market? Will it still allow the Vive or other headsets to play nice with Oculus-exclusive games?
This is Facebook we're talking about here. Why even take the chance?
I disliked the DRM as well, and applauded when they removed it, but on second thoughts, I don't find it unfair to expect something in return when Oculus is funding a game.
Developers are free to refuse Oculus's money and make a cross-platform game.
I don't see what was wrong here in the first place, when I step back and think about it calmly.
It's an attempt to bring hardware-based exclusivity agreements to a gaming platform (PCs) that has traditionally been more of a free-for-all. PC gamers overwhelmingly do not want this. The same goes for many of the other norms of gaming consoles. Many choose PC gaming over consoles for its relative openness and customizability. That's where a lot of the outrage is coming from, even if Oculus is fully within their rights to do this.
Also, Palmer used to go on record saying that they wanted VR to be an open platform. So there's a bit of betrayal mixed in.
In order to support the original intent of LibreVR (allowing any headset to run occulus content), the only way to bypass the hardware check was to remove the DRM checking completely.
This had an unintended consequence of potentially allowing abuse.
With Occulus removing that hardware check, LibreVR was able to revert it's "YANK ALL THE DRM" solution.
The checks made no sense in the first place, it's a loose-loose on all ends for occulus. A closed ecosystem basically does not work when it comes to PC gaming, and with hardware this expensive it's not like you could buy the valve-sponsored vive and the rift.
I believe that it doesn't let you just plug in another Headset and use it with the official Oculus store - but it becomes pretty trivial for 3rd party 'hacks' like Revive to let you launch your Oculus games on an unsupported headset, rather than needing to go through a ton of trouble to circumvent the DRM.
Different context, but Dan Savage articulates this well. Relevant (and censored, because he is who he is) paragraph from a long blog post [1] on Sanders vs. Clinton:
'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to defeating anti-trans bathroom legislation and RFRAs. If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political benefit—they're going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we're going to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold? ("Please change your mind and support us." "No." "Pretty please?" "OK, I've changed my mind and I'll vote to support you." "#### YOU FOR NOT ALWAYS AGREEING WITH ME! I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU! #### YOU SOME MORE!")'
Well, this is missing the point, in both cases. Opponents of neither Hillary Clinton nor Oculus are opposing them for the sole reason "they used to have this opinion".
In Oculus's case, this DRM was only the most obscene manifestation of their exclusivity strategy - the one that would set them up to be, going forward, between a legal rock and a PR hard place if they kept it in (they'd have to either leave ReVive's DRM-breaking alone, making their case in court harder if suing someone breaking DRM with the intent to steal games, or they'd have to send ReVive a DMCA takedown, and face a fatal PR backlash).
While Oculus has extricated themselves from that strategically untenable position, they're still pursuing a market-dividing strategy of exclusives through every other, subtler and less-ambiguously-legal, avenues, like timed exclusivity deals. THIS is why people are continuing to rail against Oculus.
If Oculus genuinely changed their position on exclusives (ie, they removed that restriction for every game they'd "supported" with such a deal), the VR enthusiast community would, reluctantly, welcome them back into the fold. However, that is nowhere near what Oculus are actually doing here - they're just adjusting their course so that they'll face less resistance to do the stuff everybody hates them for.
So as to keep this comment "apolitical" (as if corporate actions are less consequential than outright political ones), I've posted my response to Savage in a separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973600
In the Clinton case, she doesn't own her flip flops, she tries to rewrite history. Instead of discussing in depth how and what changed her mind (which would be really powerful), she will just claim to have always been a tireless campaigner for the issue. Its evident her flip flops are not from a change of personal philosophy but only because its now politically expedient to adopt a position.
Similarly with Oculus. Have they changed their philosophy on openness? Probably not. We will just see them attempt their goal in a different way e.g. all sorts of incompatible features in their v2.
The other side of that coin is there needs to be a cost to bad actions.
If Bernie Maddoff was to reimburse every penny he stole, would you ask people to trust him with their money? I expect not. Similarly, if a politician was against equal rights for a long time and only changed their mind around the time it was ruled unconstitutional, I wouldn't ask people to trust them with their future.
Because it's not about issues anymore, it's about identity. We live in the era of identity politics. Issues serve only as litmus tests, dog whistles, and shibboleths today. When a politician comes around on an issue, they give off a red flag: they are not a genuine member of the ingroup. They are an impostor.
Hahaha, this comment is exactly why Sanders and his supporters continue to attack Clinton on the issues. It shows a clear misunderstanding of why the issues popped up in the first place and the world view that makes such issues important. It assumes that politics is just tit for tat, and issues are like the American flag pin politicians wear after tragedies... merely accessories to appeal to a certain demographic in order to garner votes.
Funny to see Dan Savage labeling people holding a politicians feet to the fire as "political malpractice" though, as if lip service to dearly held beliefs should be enough to shelter politicians from any and all criticism. Haven't you guys heard? Politics is just a game for the DC pundit elite to play, and the poors who campaign for issues that directly effect their day to day lives need to simmer down and stop being so hostile.
The real reasons Clinton continues to get attacked for "coming around" on issues that she's "come around" for are:
1) Disingenuous support. Clinton seems to be doing 180's on issues that are not only completely antithetical to her past actions and words (and current platform), but also completely antithetical to the aims of the people who continue to give her money. This brings her incentives into question, especially when she won't release her material used at private fundraisers (remember when the Clinton campaign actively pumped white noise into a neighborhood to prevent the surrounding areas to hear what she was saying over loudspeakers at an outdoor event?)
2) Her past history shows a continued reneging on progressive positions after election time and continued return to center. Continuing to press the issue makes this a lot harder to do, and makes any future turn around a lot more apparent in it's hypocrisy.
3) Lip service/superficial support that will create no real policy changes. An example of this is the minimum wage 180. $12 is what a lot of progressive activists were looking for 10 years ago, before 2008 and the financial crisis. The logic goes that after years of hardship by the middle and lower class a higher number is needed to fully right the economic ship. Such a partial endorsement and half hearted attempt to satisfy "both sides" speaks to political machinations and a centrist mentality that would easily compromise further against any opposition. This point of view is reinforced and mainly driven by Clinton's history as an elected official.
4) The constant and incessant slandering and character assassination of Sanders and his supporters by Clinton and her supporters. Do you really expect to be welcomed with open arms for half heartedly accepting facets of Sanders' platform after running article after article about how that platform is the worst thing to happen to America since Jim Crow? How about how the meme where the entirety of the opposition are misogynistic white men out to ruin women for the sake of ruining women? How their insistence on a progressive agenda is somehow akin to Gore losing, and thus the inception of the Iraq war (which Hillary voted for). How about the hit pieces describing the imaginary "bros" who will vote for Trump, when in reality the entire factual basis for that narrative was a parody twitter account run by 4chan Trump supporters. Not even getting into the whole "you are the sum of your vocal, virulent minority, but please don't use that same argument against our campaign" tripe that seems to be spewed whenever a Clinton supporter gets backed into a corner.
Apologies for this off topic rant, but boy does rhetoric like that above really get me steaming. It's gone on for too long and it's embarrassing to see on Hacker News.
It's because people want to see politicians as idealists — while usually, cynics who just want to get elected actually make the best politicians in a functioning democracy while idealists tend to become bloody tyrants.
[+] [-] throwaway7767|9 years ago|reply
Apparently Oculus was testing for a present oculus headset in its runtime, so it was difficult for a third-party devs to build shims to connect other VR hardware to it and enjoy VR games built for oculus.
Mods, I'd suggest changing the URL to something with a better explanation, like http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course... which includes the above quote in addition to explaining the backstory.
[+] [-] asddubs|9 years ago|reply
There were two functions, one that checked whether the occulus headset was connected, and one DRM function. Occulus consolidated those functions into one, in what many assumed to be a move to be able to justify taking down projects like these under the guise of "they break our DRM", which did end up being a talking point against the projects later on.
Apparently they reversed this change now, and you can write a compatibility shim without breaking the DRM once more
[+] [-] rconti|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e1ven|9 years ago|reply
The Article quotes Oculus - "We will not use hardware checks as part of DRM on PC in the future."
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Wile_E_Quixote|9 years ago|reply
Sure, most VR hardware options may technically be peripherals for PCs, but at a cost of several hundred dollars or more, it isn't in the same category as PC mouses or joysticks. The way I see it, VR hardware is essentially a standalone device that connects to PCs, simply so that many people won't need to buy that too, saving them $1k-2k.
Creating exclusive games and buying exclusive content licensing/distribution rights for any gaming platform, especially ones in stiff competition for early adopters and the lion's share of a new market, is a great business decision. If Oculus hadn't secured exclusive content, people would have simply bought whichever hardware worked better, or shipped first. In this case, most people would have likely bought the Vive. Oculus knew that superior content is the tie-breaker and can even overshadow slight technological shortcomings, if they exist.
Oculus should never have reversed their plans to keep the content exclusive. Now, many people will just buy Vives and use them to play Oculus-subsidized content. Oculus could have created a great monopoly. Now I suspect they will have serious difficulty building a sustainable business. Peter Thiel is on Facebook's board and Marc Andreessen is on both Facebook's and Oculus's board. I can't imagine either one would support reversing the decision to make exclusive content.
[+] [-] mdc2161|9 years ago|reply
- hardware exclusives may be a better business model, but consumers (at least a vocal subset) clearly don't like them
- Microsoft seems to be moving towards having all Xbox games run on pc so console exclusives may be on their last legs
- the vr market is relatively tiny, so splitting it up with exclusives will make it harder for devs to justify making content
- game margins are much higher than vr hardware, and do it may be better to have store exclusives rather than hardware (something steam is doing without the backlash)
[+] [-] Ar-Curunir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|9 years ago|reply
Good for Oculus, but as you point out, bad for consumers who might prefer another vendor's possibly superior hardware.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodgerd|9 years ago|reply
But in exactly the same segment as video cards, and you won't see too many games publishers stupid enough to refuse to run their games on unapproved video cards.
[+] [-] sergiosgc|9 years ago|reply
Dividing the market would definitely cause prospective consumers to wait for market stabilization. It is a risk bigger than the risk posed by competitors.
[+] [-] gthtjtkt|9 years ago|reply
They're only doing the "right" thing because they have no choice. They couldn't pump enough money into third party development to make up for the ill will they'd garnered with this exclusivity DRM, especially not with companies like Valve doing the complete opposite -- giving money to third party devs with no exclusivity deals whatsoever.
Turns out some developers can't be bought[1]. Who'da thunk it?
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_... (For the sake of fairness, it was a time-limited exclusivity offer that was made to the Serious Sam devs, but an exclusivity offer nonetheless.)
[+] [-] Klathmon|9 years ago|reply
They did something bad, the community reacted negatively. If they fix the problem, rewarding them is going to make sure it sticks around.
Continuing to "punish" them for something they fixed only sends the message that the fix was pointless and that it would have been better to ignore the problem like so many other companies (including Facebook themselves) do.
[+] [-] imron|9 years ago|reply
You're kidding right? Oculus was very generous to early supporters. Name one other Kickstarter project that shipped backers the full retail version of the finished product in addition to their original purchase.
Yeah there was a slight delay, but really, original backers came out pretty good on the deal.
Disclosure: I was an early backer. My free retail Rift arrived a couple of weeks ago, and I'm happy.
[+] [-] faide|9 years ago|reply
Consoles have had exclusives since time immemorial and no one seems to bat an eye when it happens. What makes this case special?
[+] [-] wmeredith|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onewaystreet|9 years ago|reply
Valve forces devs that take their money to have their game on Steam until they have paid back the loan. That's not exclusivity but it's also not no-strings. Valve has an agenda just like Oculus.
[+] [-] rtkwe|9 years ago|reply
That I'm not so annoyed with. Their retail contracts would have had set due dates with penalties for breaching them. The backer headsets were giveaways right? They weren't promised when they originally ran the Kickstarter as I recall.
[+] [-] empath75|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smaddox|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|9 years ago|reply
To make money. Woah!! A business trying to make money!!! How dare them!!
[+] [-] empath75|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mtgx|9 years ago|reply
This is Facebook we're talking about here. Why even take the chance?
[+] [-] jonny_eh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sajan80|9 years ago|reply
My trust in the Oculus store however remains broken
[+] [-] marknutter|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kartickv|9 years ago|reply
Developers are free to refuse Oculus's money and make a cross-platform game.
I don't see what was wrong here in the first place, when I step back and think about it calmly.
[+] [-] ericd|9 years ago|reply
Also, Palmer used to go on record saying that they wanted VR to be an open platform. So there's a bit of betrayal mixed in.
[+] [-] balls187|9 years ago|reply
This had an unintended consequence of potentially allowing abuse.
With Occulus removing that hardware check, LibreVR was able to revert it's "YANK ALL THE DRM" solution.
[+] [-] Vexs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faldore|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mashlol|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsheard|9 years ago|reply
This change just means Oculus will no longer deliberately block such wrappers from working.
[+] [-] Blaaguuu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanlm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azernik|9 years ago|reply
'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to defeating anti-trans bathroom legislation and RFRAs. If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political benefit—they're going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we're going to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold? ("Please change your mind and support us." "No." "Pretty please?" "OK, I've changed my mind and I'll vote to support you." "#### YOU FOR NOT ALWAYS AGREEING WITH ME! I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU! #### YOU SOME MORE!")'
[1] http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/22/23606058/hi...
[+] [-] dang|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spb|9 years ago|reply
In Oculus's case, this DRM was only the most obscene manifestation of their exclusivity strategy - the one that would set them up to be, going forward, between a legal rock and a PR hard place if they kept it in (they'd have to either leave ReVive's DRM-breaking alone, making their case in court harder if suing someone breaking DRM with the intent to steal games, or they'd have to send ReVive a DMCA takedown, and face a fatal PR backlash).
While Oculus has extricated themselves from that strategically untenable position, they're still pursuing a market-dividing strategy of exclusives through every other, subtler and less-ambiguously-legal, avenues, like timed exclusivity deals. THIS is why people are continuing to rail against Oculus.
If Oculus genuinely changed their position on exclusives (ie, they removed that restriction for every game they'd "supported" with such a deal), the VR enthusiast community would, reluctantly, welcome them back into the fold. However, that is nowhere near what Oculus are actually doing here - they're just adjusting their course so that they'll face less resistance to do the stuff everybody hates them for.
So as to keep this comment "apolitical" (as if corporate actions are less consequential than outright political ones), I've posted my response to Savage in a separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973600
[+] [-] duncanawoods|9 years ago|reply
Similarly with Oculus. Have they changed their philosophy on openness? Probably not. We will just see them attempt their goal in a different way e.g. all sorts of incompatible features in their v2.
[+] [-] Yver|9 years ago|reply
If Bernie Maddoff was to reimburse every penny he stole, would you ask people to trust him with their money? I expect not. Similarly, if a politician was against equal rights for a long time and only changed their mind around the time it was ruled unconstitutional, I wouldn't ask people to trust them with their future.
[+] [-] chongli|9 years ago|reply
Because it's not about issues anymore, it's about identity. We live in the era of identity politics. Issues serve only as litmus tests, dog whistles, and shibboleths today. When a politician comes around on an issue, they give off a red flag: they are not a genuine member of the ingroup. They are an impostor.
[+] [-] pdeuchler|9 years ago|reply
Funny to see Dan Savage labeling people holding a politicians feet to the fire as "political malpractice" though, as if lip service to dearly held beliefs should be enough to shelter politicians from any and all criticism. Haven't you guys heard? Politics is just a game for the DC pundit elite to play, and the poors who campaign for issues that directly effect their day to day lives need to simmer down and stop being so hostile.
The real reasons Clinton continues to get attacked for "coming around" on issues that she's "come around" for are:
1) Disingenuous support. Clinton seems to be doing 180's on issues that are not only completely antithetical to her past actions and words (and current platform), but also completely antithetical to the aims of the people who continue to give her money. This brings her incentives into question, especially when she won't release her material used at private fundraisers (remember when the Clinton campaign actively pumped white noise into a neighborhood to prevent the surrounding areas to hear what she was saying over loudspeakers at an outdoor event?)
2) Her past history shows a continued reneging on progressive positions after election time and continued return to center. Continuing to press the issue makes this a lot harder to do, and makes any future turn around a lot more apparent in it's hypocrisy.
3) Lip service/superficial support that will create no real policy changes. An example of this is the minimum wage 180. $12 is what a lot of progressive activists were looking for 10 years ago, before 2008 and the financial crisis. The logic goes that after years of hardship by the middle and lower class a higher number is needed to fully right the economic ship. Such a partial endorsement and half hearted attempt to satisfy "both sides" speaks to political machinations and a centrist mentality that would easily compromise further against any opposition. This point of view is reinforced and mainly driven by Clinton's history as an elected official.
4) The constant and incessant slandering and character assassination of Sanders and his supporters by Clinton and her supporters. Do you really expect to be welcomed with open arms for half heartedly accepting facets of Sanders' platform after running article after article about how that platform is the worst thing to happen to America since Jim Crow? How about how the meme where the entirety of the opposition are misogynistic white men out to ruin women for the sake of ruining women? How their insistence on a progressive agenda is somehow akin to Gore losing, and thus the inception of the Iraq war (which Hillary voted for). How about the hit pieces describing the imaginary "bros" who will vote for Trump, when in reality the entire factual basis for that narrative was a parody twitter account run by 4chan Trump supporters. Not even getting into the whole "you are the sum of your vocal, virulent minority, but please don't use that same argument against our campaign" tripe that seems to be spewed whenever a Clinton supporter gets backed into a corner.
Apologies for this off topic rant, but boy does rhetoric like that above really get me steaming. It's gone on for too long and it's embarrassing to see on Hacker News.
[+] [-] golergka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosstex|9 years ago|reply