Politics thread. Old one is past 400.
European governments still not doing anything about Russia or the Middle East? No? Excellent, stay the cowardly course.
Joe Biden shined last night.
Breitbart harassing another transgender white nationalist pedophile.
Why would anyone ever subject themselves to reading Breitbart in the first place?
I dunno, let me go check their main page to see what kind of stuff they have.
Oh, OK. This is too boring to more thasn skim it but sounds like what I would do as president.
I mean I don't smoke, but other than that.
Still looking for an explanation of why nerds are bullies.
Back when the adult nerds of today were kids, they were taunted and teased and poked and prodded into creating insular groups of nerds who came together due to their interest in specific “nerd hobbies” (e.g. D&D, vidyagaems, comic books). In time, these kids insulated themselves within those groups and became each other’s support system, which led them to believe those hobbies were meant only for the people willing to devote loads of time and energy towards said hobbies—you know, “true” nerds. When these kids grew up, that “this is only for ‘true’ fans” idea stayed with them; whenever a nerd hobby they were mocked for liking as a kid goes “mainstream”, they leap at the chance to chase the “outsiders” away as a form of “justified” revenge. You’ll often hear stories about female fans of pretty much any nerd hobby being run off by douchebags; that happens because the douchebags believe that hobby belongs to them and them alone.
Fucked up, ain’t it?
Speaking of Breitbart, Milo is now deleting all tweets where he interacted with a GGer arrested for aiding a terrorist.
The same GGer Milo use to write his shameful hit piece about Shawn King not being biracial.
>Arrested for shitposting
That's priceless he's Jewish too.
While I agreed with the majority of your previous post, libertarianism just means that you hate government intervention, not "being nice to people"; the most renowned libertarians in my country are politicians who say Islam and homosexuals will bring about the downfall of society, and columnists who have written articles defending child rapists, regular rapists and Vladimir Putin.
Libertarians are, ultimately, about self-interest. Anti-social behavior as a political party.
Some libertarians go for enlightened self-interest, but most are the regular kind of self-interest.
Don't claim victory that fast. CNN couldn't prove he was actually black.
Also, that drama work both ways.
Played us all like a fiddle.
>CNN couldn't prove he was actually black.
I think the burden of proof was on the guy who claimed King wasn't black. Not that it mattered if he was one way or the other.
Man, it's weird how many Gamergate and Breitbart people turn out to be white supremacists or terrorists or other brands of dangerous lunatics.
Same with aGG and cyber crime and sexual deviancy tbh.
Pls note that I am not actually defending Gamergate's screwup with this post, I can in fact be against criminals and scumbags of all political agendas--you don't actually have to defend everyone who shares your opinion, which I know may surprise some of you.
"Wow Slowpoke you sure are being all high and mighty hurf durr"
Quit being The Worst and I'll quit acting like I'm better than you. Believe it or not, there was a time when I acted respectfully to people on this site. I'm not the one who changed.
>I don't have to worry about dKos writers getting arrested for trying to incite terrorism. That's a conservative thing
What a smug douche.
Which part are you confused about, anon?
>Believe it or not, there was a time when I acted respectfully to people on this site.
I've been here a long time, Slowpoke, and I honestly can't remember that time.
>Pls note that I am not actually defending Gamergate's screwup with this post
I mean you are, but sure, tell yourself that's not what you're doing. The only reason you ever post in the Politics thread is to defend Gamergate or attack "aGG" which is apparently a thing that exists in your mind.
>twitterfag with a yumi nikki avatar
>must be gamergate
The kid who got arrested would straight up admit to you that he's a GamerGater. It has nothing to do with his avatar.
Nah, only reason I post in this thread is to call out hypocrites. I'm a lot more liberal than you'd expect, I just have more fun shooting down people who defend everyone who self identify as feminist than I do call about how at is core feminism is a worthwhile movement. Something something going against the grain.
Oh come now, it was only a year or two ago. I even had a couple anons ask for me as a mod, possibly as a counterbalance to the Tyrant Bear.
I think it mostly started going downhill when Larry Tremaine left. That guy's pretty much my conscience.
>than I do circlejerking about how at is core feminism is a worthwhile movement
New phone, my autocorrect doesn't have the fun words learned yet.
>I just have more fun shooting down people who defend everyone who self identify as feminist than I do call about how at is core feminism is a worthwhile movement
So then the simpler way of saying this is "I'm a contrarian."
That guy pretended to be GG, anti-GG , a feminist, a Neo-Nazi, an ISIS supporter. If imageboards cannot recognize obvious trolls now...
I think he send bomb threats because "Everyone is too manipulable now , trolling is for casuals. Time for prison hard mode, I need a challenge."
Going back to the Kim Davis story for what will probably be the last big standoff in her anti-gay “insurrection”, the Rowan County, KY clerk goes back to work tomorrow after spending five days in jail and another five soaking in all the attention for being the “martyr” of a lost cause. Her case will linger on in federal court as her appeal of Judge Bunning’s “do your fucking job” court order goes through the motions (she’ll lose it), and that same court said she must go through state courts if she wants Gov. Steve Beshear to change marriage license forms to remove her name. With the exception of her son, all of Davis’s deputy clerks have promised to continue issuing marriage licenses for any eligible couple. Bunning has ordered Davis not to stop them from doing their job, too.
So, who else thinks Davis is gonna play George Wallace—and go to jail for it—again?
I dunno, I don't think so. I'm just kind of a moderate who understands that both "sides" of most any issue are made up of awful people, and it frustrates me when people ignore or excuse their side while condemning others for the same exact thing.
That's not contrarianism, is it?
Trying to play the middle ground one group is leaps and bounds worse than the other is not needed. Reminds me of people who say, "well, democrats and Republicans are both bad." when one of said groups is largely racist, mysoginistic, and anti-science (conservative republicans, for those not paying attention).
Saying that both sides should be held to the same standards and saying both sides should be presumed equal isn't the same thing.
Well, they are being held to the same standards, hence one of them being disproportionately worse.
And yet when hard evidence of a Big Name from one of those groups comes out, proving her a pedophile, child predator, tax-evader, and white nationalism apologist, the closest thing to a retort any of you guys have is "lel who even reads that website"
I'm sensing some bias that needs correcting.
Also, I'm not "trying to play middle ground."
>one of those groups
Which groups are we talking about here? Is there a name for this "AGG" you were referring to, or is it just made up of everyone who thinks GG is dildos?
>And yet when hard evidence of a Big Name from one of those groups comes out, proving her a pedophile, child predator, tax-evader, and white nationalism apologist
Literally no one here denied any of this, nor did they excuse it. And if you're talking about Breitbart, there's a good fucking reason people disregard that site. It's on the same tier as the shit Gawker pours out of some of its sites.
>I'm sensing some bias that needs correcting.
No you aren't.
I'm telling you in spite of whatever shit you have to say about one person involved in, uh, "AGG" that GG is still far worse. On that same token, you can point out recent things Democrats have done in recent years. It still does not compare to the amount of sheer stupidity that Republicans have done.
Oh, thanks for letting me know that you're completely unbiased, and also that your groups are great but have minor flaws while The Other Groups are the devil. You sure set me straight. :)
My groups being what, you massive retard?
I'm still going to need a definition here. Because it seems you have as much reason to consider people who dislike Gamergate a group with unified opinions or traits as we have to consider you a member of Gamergate yourself.
>I'm telling you in spite of whatever shit you have to say about one person involved in, uh, "AGG" that GG is still far worse.
how is /v/ donating to charity cause they want to "look nice" worse than SJWs who harass and get people fired
I would consider outspoken opponents of something who socialize primarily with each other about said issue they oppose, speak primarily about said issue, write articles primarily about said issue, and go to the trouble of creating and advertising a blacklist of people from said issue, to be a group themselves. Do you have a retort?
Also, if it's between Gamergate, and The People Who Are Outspoken Opponents Of Gamergate, Socialize Primarily With Each Other About Gamegate, Speak Primarily About Gamergate, Write Articles Primarily About Gamergate, And Go To The Trouble Of Creating And Advertising A Blacklist Of People From Gamergate, I'd say that I do lean more towards Gamergate itself. If you wanna take an Us Or Them approach to it, that's fine, but I think if you do that you lose the ability to harp on for two full political threads about how there is no "us," only Them And Then Everyone Else.
If you want to be reductive to the point where you think GG was just "/v/ donating money to charity" I'm not sure what to say to you
Even funnier that you're including "/v/" as some sort of whole entity that was involved with it. moot himself said that GamerGaters, as much bullshit they posted during that period, were a small minority of /v/ posters.
You're responding to a retard who thinks the Republican Party is racist, misogynist, and anti-science.
no, I'm saying that when fucking 4chan is donating to charity and speaking out against bullying, something is wrong when you look like an asshole compared to 4chan
>I would consider outspoken opponents of something who socialize primarily with each other about said issue they oppose, speak primarily about said issue, write articles primarily about said issue, and go to the trouble of creating and advertising a blacklist of people from said issue, to be a group themselves
Can you name any people who fit that description, or are they just hypothetical constructs? Because I don't know of anyone who socializes primarily about Gamergate except for members of Gamergate.
and it wasn't just a small minority, since how often do threads get over 2000 posts on /v/?
>You're responding to a retard who thinks the Republican Party is racist, misogynist, and anti-science.
How is it not?
You know, I'm not even going to bother with the first two, because no one ever wants to admit that they're racist shitheels or that they think foul of women, but how are you going to sit there and act like the same party that largely denies climate change isn't "anti-science"
Well, being as how I have only referred to one person in this entire thread as being aGG, and that's Sarah Nyberg, you'd think you could start there, eh?
>and it wasn't just a small minority, since how often do threads get over 2000 posts on /v/?
This is going to blow your mind, but
Couple of things
/v/ is a very large board that gets a metric shitton of visitors.
And second, you seem to misunderstand how anonymous imageboards work. All 2000 of those posts aren't from different people.
the gamerghazi board on rebbit
When you think of it, you have to be a real huge asshole to look like a more awful person than 4chan.
Sicknasty moved goalposts, my dude.
>no one exists that matches that criteria
>e-except for that person
I never said no one meets the criteria of anything
You're talking to two different people. He asked you for a group...and I'm pointing out that a group consists of more than one person.
Ian Cheong actually decided the aGG movement was getting too toxic and hypocritical, and "defected" for lack of a better word.
Democrats have more anti-vaxxers and anti-frackers. I think it's hard to say that the party with an optometrist and neurosurgeon running for president is more anti-science.
>and neurosurgeon running for president
Ben Carson is a fucking retard when it comes to anything not involving neurosurgery. I'm actually impressed that one person can be so stupid and smart at one time.
He's not just "a neurosurgeon", he was the youngest director in JHU's history. He knows more about science than you'll ever know know in 3 lifetimes.
You're doing that thing where you argue with multiple people but treat it like you're arguing with one so you can look down on them for having different opinions from one another again. I don't personally consider your one example to hold water at all. For starters, your definition of "aGG" requires there to be multiple people in it for it to exist, since it specifically mentions "socializing with each other" about it. Which can't be done by a single person. And I don't know this person you're talking about, and don't honestly give enough of a shit about the people you like to use to try to prove to yourself how much smarter you are than everyone else to research her further, but I honestly doubt she meets most of your other criteria, either--because you worded your criteria in such a way as to try to make it indisputable, but in so doing you also worded them in a way that excludes pretty much everyone. Thus allowing you to continue being a smug prick talking about imaginary enemies you can feel better than without having to actually find a person to mention specifically.
Your entire political philosophy seems to revolve around Golden Mean bullshit, and you invent opposite sides of issues that don't actually have sides so you can be in the "middle" because your political philosophy is so sophomoric as to assume being in the middle is automatically correct. It's what I call the "Trey Parker and Matt Stone School of Politics."
And he's a right-wing retard who's also retarded and uneducated on subjects like homosexuality.
I don't know why you're playing a game here. It's possible for someone to be smart in one area and stupid in another. And outside of his given field, Ben Carson is a retard
>It's what I call the "Trey Parker and Matt Stone School of Politics."
That Turd Douche/Shit Sandwich episode was hilarious (well, at least it was when I first saw it--but I was a dumb kid then, so who knows), but it is indeed sad to see so many people adopting it as a political standpoint.
>He knows more about science than you'll ever know know in 3 lifetimes.
That's a completely stupid thing to say. "Science" is a field which contains countless disciplines and knowing a lot about one branch of science in no way qualifies you in any of the other fields. The most brilliant chemist who ever lived would probably know less about rocket science than a freshman in astrophysics. Even different branches of medicine are so far apart as to make taking the opinion of a psychologist about your pancreatic cancer pretty pointless, and they're at least trained in the same basics.
>That Turd Douche/Shit Sandwich episode was hilarious (well, at least it was when I first saw it--but I was a dumb kid then, so who knows), but it is indeed sad to see so many people adopting it as a political standpoint.
Yeah, I actually enjoyed that episode in and of itself, but the thing is that almost every episode about any subject they talk about makes the same point: "Group A thinks we should build a bridge, Group B thinks we shouldn't, so obviously the wisest course of action is to build half a bridge."
Once again, I'm not trying to be in the middle of anything. I never actually said I was. I said I'm moderate, and separately from that, I also said that both sides (of most issues) have trash-heaps in them.
What I HAVE said in this thread is that I do have a "side." I even specified which one it was, consider actually reading. I have also said that I call out people on my "side." Like Stone, about most issues he talks about. I actually agree with him about a lot, but I also think he's got hella tunnelvision and ignores the more unpleasant aspects of his sociopolitical views to maintain his "we're the good guys" mindset, which I don't respect.
Claiming to be a moderate is claiming to be in the middle.
I was under the impression that moderate meant "not extremist/radical"
I might be wrong, I've honestly never looked it up, that's just what I got from contextual usage.
Which is the same thing as "in the middle." A moderate republican and a moderate democrat would theoretically be closer to one another than they would be to most of the rest of their respective parties. Leaning in a particular direction but being moderate is saying that you are in the middle compared to the rank and file and might go across the aisle on certain issues. It's what tends to get people called RINOs and DINOs.
Now, see, you're sort of implying that there are only, for example, radical Repubs, extremist Demos, and then people "in the middle," who aren't really on either side. I'm not, to use someone's earlier example, advocating the building of half a bridge, though I do fit (and also disagree with) your definition of being in the middle.
Like, pic related, it's a point that's not in the middle of the line. It's on the left side. It's not as far on the left side as it could be, but it's on the left.
In the middle assumes there's two options to choose from, which is an American mindset. The reality is more complex...
Now we're just arguing semantics here. There are many people who would look at that drawing you did and say that arrow is in the middle. It's not the exact center, but it's clearly in the middle area.
No, in fact if there were only two options to choose from, it would be impossible to be in the middle. Being in the middle implies there is a spectrum.
Eh. If the options are Extremist 1, Extremist 2, or The Middle, then yeah, I guess I'll take the middle.
Gawker doesn't fit his criteria at all, as the vast majority of their content has nothing to do with GamerGate. Same with Neogaf. So you seem to just be including anyone who's ever said anything bad about GamerGate again.
You're making the opposite mistake, by assuming Republicans are much worse than Democrats. To most people, hateful Christians like Rick Santorum are just as bad as hateful feminists like Hillary Clinton. That's why trump is so popular, since he's not bought and sold like other politicians.
Their commenting sections revolve around it though. Neogaf for example bans anyone who is not "anti gamergate" so it is fair to say this is something that defines them.
Also something that should clearly indicate how full of shit anti gamergate is how biased they are. The gamergate people have diversity of thought, from conservatives to feminists, however there is not a single anti gamergate who is a Republican, libertarian, ideological Christian, etc. So you can tell they are lying when they call gamergate terrorists they simply don't like them because of politics.
Reading the comments section of any website is retarded to begin with, but even if it weren't, "doesn't allow commentary by groups they find distasteful" was not listed among Slowpoke's criteria.
>Reading the comments section of any website is retarded to begin with
How else are you supposed to judge the community? You are posting in a comments section right now.
An image board is different from the comments section in a website. Comments sections on websites are without exception plagues.
>however there is not a single anti gamergate who is a Republican, libertarian, ideological Christian, etc.
Curious as to how you obtained this data.
>Curious as to how you obtained this data.
When you make up your enemies, you get to make up all the details about them, too.
>No, in fact if there were only two options to choose from, it would be impossible to be in the middle. Being in the middle implies there is a spectrum.
Are you retarded?
"Not a single" might be a bit extreme, statistically there should be at least one republican christfag posting on /gg/. Anyway there have been multiple political compass threads during #GG and they're all supporting the spirit of that guys statement.
There's even some aGG statistics nerd who accidentally ended up proving gamergate twitter accounts have a wider set of friends than aGGro, who (after modelling) end up looking like a circlejerk.
Jumpman ITT pretty much proved it.
>Can you name one?
Burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim.
Given that my assertion is that your enemies are imaginary, no, I can't name any. They are in your head, not mine.
>Given that my assertion is that your enemies are imaginary
Given that your assertion without evidence has been dismissed without evidence, can you stop stalling and provide a counterargument?
Oh there exists quite a bit of documented evidence you are wrong on every level. He just shouldn't be forced into defending himself against wild accusations.
>name some stuff he made up about Gawker for example.
literally what are you talking about
You claimed he was making stuff up about his enemies.
>When you make up your enemies, you get to make up all the details about them, too.
Name some of the stuff he made up.
>"Making up" stuff is your claim, name some stuff he made up about Gawker for example.
Well for example, you say the majority of what they write about is Gamergate. However, I follow Lifehacker, which is a Gawker site, and I can't remember a single Gamergate thing from them in months, maybe ever. Mostly what they write about is, say, "How to use TECHNIQUE X to stick to your budget" or "How to make a raised garden bed" or other shit like that. So your assertion is demonstrably false from the getgo that they even give a shit about your stupid movement other than when you do something newsworthy like threaten to rape and kill women to get them to shut up.
>You claimed he was making stuff up about his enemies.
No I didn't. You're speaking with more than one person, dipshit.
Kim Davis issued a statement this morning during which said she wouldn’t issue marriage licenses, but also wouldn’t interfere with (or take action against) the deputy clerks who do. All future licenses (assumedly the ones for straight couples, too) will not have her name on them and will be marked as issued under a federal court order. She still plans to pursue the full “change the form” accomodation in court, while Gov. Beshear has noted that only the state legislature has the power to change the form (for which he won't call a special session) and any marriage licenses issued while Kim Davis was in jail are perfectly legal. Davis’s lawyers (all from noted pro-Christian/anti-gay law firm Liberty Counsel) haven’t said whether they consider this a “victory”, but considering how they were likely shooting for “stop gay marriage” and had to settle for “get her name off paperwork”—which they haven’t even managed to do yet—I doubt they’re eager to keep this shitbird of a case going. Oh, and since GoFundMe changed the rules of their site to disallow crowdfunding campaigns for situations like Davis’s, she ain’t gonna get rich off of her bigotry.
Barring a court win or her doing something monumentally stupid, that should be the end of Kim Davis being anything other than a historical footnote.
No one fucking cares, this was a one-off story not something worth weeks of examination.
If a clerk is being a jerk, go to another clerk. If a judge makes a blatantly biased decision go over their head or get them recused.
Our system would have stalled by now if we expected every official to not have a stick up their ass.
>No one fucking cares
>If a clerk is being a jerk, go to another clerk.
or she could do her job
>If a clerk is being a jerk, go to another clerk.
This was actually part of the problem: Kim Davis had ordered her deputy clerks not to issue marriage licenses to any couple, court order be damned. The people of Rowan County literally couldn't go to another clerk unless they went to a neighboring county. No one asked her to participate in a wedding, approve of same-sex marriages, or do anything that would actually violate her religious beliefs. (All that “being complicit in sin” stuff is bullshit.) And yet she put an undue burden on the citizens she swore to serve—and potentially forced five deputy clerks to follow her religious beliefs—all so she didn’t have to sign off on paperwork that said "these gay people are married". Don’t say “no one cares” or “they could’ve just gone elsewhere” when you know both of those statements ring false.
IT'S TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
COME ON AMERICA
I hate John Oliver. He used to be funny, now he spends an hour lecturing America about what it's doing wrong. His liberalism has reached intolerant levels.
He has a point though. It's 2015 A.D., how long are we going to put off degrading into the end times?
Trans-Pacific Parnetship: not a good thing
Is it really a good time to get a businessman for president?
I-I was being an i-ironic pedophile
>i-I just distributed child pornography as a joke ;(
>He has a point though.
How is a year a point? 41% of the countries out there criminalize homosexuality, 91% have discriminatory laws. And even in the 9% West that has equal treatment, lgbt is still considered mental disorders.
John Oliver is attempting to imply that USA is "behind" the rest of the world, when in fact it's leading.
Geez what an absolute cunt, can't believe people are protecting her.
>John Oliver is attempting to imply that USA is "behind" the rest of the world, when in fact it's leading.
You can't really say it's leading just because there are other countries that are trailing even farther behind than the US is. Many developed nations at this point are far more progressive both socially and economically than the US. The US doesn't really lead in anything.
>The US doesn't really lead in anything.
When did this happen anyway?
It seems that after a certain point, the only thing the USA was number 1 in was obesity, and if I'm recalling recent studies correctly, we aren't even number 1 at that anymore.
>It seems that after a certain point, the only thing the USA was number 1 in was obesity, and if I'm recalling recent studies correctly, we aren't even number 1 at that anymore.
I think several polynesian countries--most notably Samoa in my mind but probably others as well--have always had us beat on that front, honestly. But that's like a genetic predisposition combined with a culture that doesn't really see fatness as necessarily being a problem thing, so I think the US tends to get the rap because we were, at least at one time, the fattest country that actually gave a shit about being fat.
>How is a year a point?
See, that's the joke I was making with "degrading into the end times". An appeal to the current year without any context doesn't convey anything but the speaker thinking that you take too long to agree with them.
Aaaand we find out who's behind the migrant rush into Europe. It's George Soros.
>You can't really say it's leading just because there are other countries that are trailing even farther behind than the US is.
Get enough trailing countries and... that's kind of what leading means.
Looking at (arbitrarily picked numbers--this is just for the sake of argument) 25th place out of 100 isn't exactly leading.
Just like being a B student doesn't make you the top of the class.
1. Where's the connection to George Soros?
2. Oh no, helping refugees who are going anyway arrive safely, how terrible.
Leading implies that EVERY other country is trailing behind you, or at least almost every country. Among developed nations, we are trailing in almost any area you could care to name.
“Leading” also implies we’re paving a road for other countries to follow by showing them how to do something in a way those countries could adapt for their specific cultures. That…really isn’t all that true, either.
>brady bunch promotes fear of anything weapons related
>schools start punishing kids for chewing a pop-tart into a shape of a gun
>for pointing fingers in the shape of a gun
>for having an AK-47 desktop picture
>for bringing a quarter inch sized action figure "gun replica" to school
>for cutting a capital L out of paper
>for making cupcakes with green army toys on top
>for mishearing a kid singing belair lyrics to means "shooting people outside of the school".
>for cutting flapjacks into "dangerous" triangular shapes
I'm not surprised at all they called the cops on a kid for making a clock, the level of liberal hysteria in schools is out of control.
This isn't a gun or liberal thing, though. It's a bomb and conservative hate/racism thing. Overreaction, for sure, but if Ahmed had been white we wouldn't even know he existed.
>You can't really say it's leading just because there are other countries that are trailing even farther behind than the US is.
That's exactly what the definition of leading is. You can't say the US is falling behind when every country is more backwards.
>It's a bomb and conservative hate/racism thing.
Hhahahaha! The doublethink!
What's that got to do with this case
>every country is more backwards.
That's just it, every country isn't more backwards. About 10% of countries are beating us in every area.
Pretty much every developed nation. So yes, Sweden is among those.
The ability of ammosexuals to make incidents with no guns involved whatsoever all about their gun fetish is really astounding.
Sweden is a shithole mate, rape capital of the west. UK is violent crime capital of the west. Most countries you probably think of as "better" are rapidly going down the shitter, they only enjoyed maybe 5-10 years of being ahead of America in the 2000s after the bubble burst.
The only areas you might claim these countries to be better at are areas which are judged by think tanks and panels based in those selfsame countries.
I am NOT an ammosexual.
I have finally found the strength to admit it.
I was 12 years old when I realized that I’m not really a man at heart, but rather a 19 foot, 10.5 inch long gatling gun strapped onto a 24,959 pound airframe.
All my life has been a lie but I’m setting that right today. I was designed to kill Soviet tanks. From now on, call me “Warthog.” That’s my real name.
I’m having plastic surgeons attach a GAU-8 Avenger 30 milimeter rotary cannon, 1,200 pounds of titanium armor, and two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines to my body.
Sgt. Major Fairchild said I’m fucking stupid and I can’t be a jet, but I’m beautiful and I am a goddamn jet.
If the Army won’t pay for me to get the surgery, I’m just going to bring in Code Pink and point out that that Manning loser is getting hormones and he’s in prison so why shouldn’t a perfectly well-adjusted and honorably serving soldier have the right to be who they truly are, a metal killing machine?
I am so sick and tired of being oppressed.
Now we A-10’s are on Congress’s chopping block.
It’s sickening to see all the white cisgender nazi shitlords literally raping my people with their actions.
It’s my right to spray 2,100 to 4,200 depleted uranium rounds per minute at both soft and hard targets and if you don’t support me and my transformation then you’re an aerophobe and need to check your weapon platform privilege.
>Sweden is a shithole mate, rape capital of the west.
Not a true statement. If you do a direct comparison between countries Sweden looks like it has the most sexual assaults, but that doesn't take into account the fact that Sweden has a much broader definition of sexual assault, and its police report their data differently from other western countries, leading to their number appearing inflated compared with other countries.
Even the people who authored the study which spawned the 'rape capitol of the world' meme say that it's not suitable for making comparisons between countries.
Oh gees here come the rape apologists... women there are also polled, EUAFR polled all countries in Europe with the same methodology, and ended up with Denmark, Finland and Sweden at the top of the list.
Is it because women in Sweden magically can't tell when they're being raped? It's a real problem, really happening, and you aren't helping the victims by trying to minimize it.
Also the violent crime rate isn't to do with reporting or with polls, and the definition is stable (crime that is violent).
It's not rape apologism to point out statistical inaccuracy. Also, the spoiler text final line makes it obvious you're the right-wing jackass who's been shitting up this thread and its predecessors, so I don't know why I'm bothering to pretend that you're speaking in good faith.
Have you actually read that survey? They draw very different conclusions from 'Sweden is the rape capitol of the west'.
>being against rape is being a right wing jackass
The discussion was about which countries are more advanced, not rape. And the fact that you specifically brought up Sweden when no one else had and then when it was agreed that, yes, among the many countries that have better economy, infrastructure, and freedoms than the US is Sweden, suddenly you go off on a rant about rape statistics--making it clear this was a tangent you intentionally tried to divert the discussion with. You are a troll. Shut the fuck up.
> They draw very different conclusions from 'Sweden is the rape capitol of the west'.
If by "very different" you mean confirming that they aren't the utopia you thought they were.
You're talking to at least three different people. The guy who brought up Sweden wasn't me (the A-10 guy), and neither was this>>400627
It doesn't really matter how many people we're talking to, you're still intentionally trying to shift the subject away from what we were actually talking about toward something incendiary for your own amusement, and that's trolling.
No, by 'very different' I meant - actually, you know what? Go read it yourself. You don't even need a JSTOR account for that shit, it is free to download from the Internet.
Leaving the last line of your post in pointless spoilertext marks you as a specific right-wing jackass and troll, who uses that as his shtick.
I like to laugh at people who talk about politics without any knowledge how politics or their government works.
And then I remember I don't know much either.
>you're still intentionally
Dumbass do you understand the concept of different people?
Dumbass, do you understand the fact that "you" can be plural in english? Would you rather I had said "y'all?"
This whole thread:
>there is more than one person that doesn't support your idea!
it's hilariously true
me and Moose are basically the only """contributors"" that you can directly call an idiot, everyone else is just all "wasn't me."
What are you... DUMBASS YOURE TALKING TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON QUIT ACCUSING ME OF SHIT I DIDNT DO!
Sweden is also more than one person.
>im losing the argument!
>better start trolling people with non sequiturs
There's no argument to win. There's just one guy smearing feces all over himself, and a bunch of other people milling around and getting feces on themselves by foolishly interacting with him.
I'm not the guy that guy was talking to either, but he's obviously trying to derail the discussion.
Why is it so fucking impossible to argue with feminists?
>there should be more female characters in this work of fiction
>well actually there are a lot more than the ones you just named
>yeah but they're just TOOLS to bring more attention to the MALES
>well depending on the situation, there's nothing inherently wrong with that and you're looking way too deep into it anyway. not every character has to be a strong and independent action girl.
>YOU'RE A SEXIST PIG
>everyone else proceeds to side with the radical feminist girl, of course, because all they see is a male making a female upset
Even if you agree with 99% of what they fucking say, they will find that 1% and use it against you in the most passive-aggressive way possible, and ANY argument you throw back will automatically make you look like a sexist bigot. There SHOULD be a middle ground, but there never is. Do libtards just not understand the point of a debate?
Maybe you need to stop being so sensitive and getting your panties in a twist every time someone tells you they're not as fully satisfied as you are by whatever you're watching.
>[x] sucks because it does [y]
>[y] is really fucking prevalent in other things like [x]
>we should be asking ourselves how we justify putting [y] in [x]
This is what most discussions about questionable/sexist/racist/etc. tropes and trends boils down to…up until the point where you say “there’s nothing inherently wrong with that”. That makes you sound like you’re excusing away the troublesome nature of those kinds of tropes rather than looking for a reason to justify the trope’s usage. Yes, not every story needs a “strong and independent action girl”, but every story that includes a woman who isn’t the protagonist doesn’t need to automatically make said woman an object that exists only to enhance how we feel about the (often male) hero.
On a fundamental level, this is a bit like a “Not All Men” argument: you hear someone complain about this horrible trope or a lack of well-written female characters in a fictional story, but rather than nod your head and let this person complain, you immediately launch into a “Not All Stories” argument in an attempt to bury complaints that person might have about the story. If that person’s complaint contains a fundamental flaw (e.g. their complaint is based on something that isn’t in the story), go ahead and point it out. But if the only reason you want to argue is to launch a “Not All Stories” defense of shitty tropes/trends, you’d probably be better off if you kept your mouth shut.
It's mostly impossible to argue with anyone who has a sociopolitical opinion.
Source: I argue with everyone constantly
"Impossible to argue with [X]" is code for "[X] doesn't capitulate properly when I try to bully them into agreeing with me."
Nah it's code for "even when presented with evidence, they pull some lame excuse to justify continued unfaltering belief in their worldview," and everyone who pledges allegiance to a group instead of an idea does it.
And I imagine when you refuse to budge on an argument despite being presented with evidence it's rationality rather than stubbornness.
Maybe people shouldn't accuse me of supporting rape when I say their opinions are wrong
Your attitude still makes it seem like you're someone who takes things out of proportion because you like to be offended. Like someone said "That scene is a little rapey" and your response was "WAIT, I LIKED THAT SCENE! YOU JUST SAID I SUPPORT RAPE!" Maybe if you didn't come off so butthurt about feminists people wouldn't assume you're in the wrong in your arguments so much.
This! Ignore feminists. Their power only comes when people pay attention to them, which is why they try to be as annoying and fallacious as possible.
It's like the annoying sibling who keeps pointing at you and going "Im not touching you! Im not touching you!" for hours, ignore them and eventually they'll grow weary and leave.
No man, it's genuinely impossible, feminists don't subscribe to any rational form of debate. I've had feminists reject the ethic of reciprocity and deny causality right in my face.
1. When both partners are drunk and have sex, the man committed rape while the woman was raped.
2. Women should be able to opt out of raising a kid by aborting it. Men shouldn't be able to opt out of raising a kid.
3. Women are strong but they need lowered entry standards into military, education, business etc.
4. Birth control pills for women are liberating. Birth control pills for men are sexist.
5. ALWAYS MAKE SURE THE FEMALE PARTNER CONSENTS! NO PROOF OF CONSENT = RAPE. Cellphone apps which prove the partners consent are sexist.
6. When a man and woman divorce, the man should keep paying the woman to maintain her lifestyle because he's richer. When a man divorces a richer woman... fuggedaboutit.
7. It's sexist to cut off parts of female baby genitals. It's not sexist to cut off pieces of male baby genitals.
8. Family courts favoring the mother is not sexist because mothers are better parents. But statistics show women abuse children more ofteRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPEEE!
And if you kindly point out these are self contradictory statements, they claim you're harassing them. When you point out the definition of harassment, they claim you're part of institutionalized oppression of women.When I point out the definition of institutionalized oppression, they claim they're being raped and call in their flying monkeys. It's turtles all the way down.
>7. It's sexist to cut off parts of female baby genitals. It's not sexist to cut off pieces of male baby genitals.
Are you seriously comparing intentionally removing a woman's ability to have an orgasm with a purely cosmetic removal of the foreskin?
>Yeah man, comparing genital mutilation to genital mutilation is so ridiculous.
You're becoming a parody of yourself, man.
>Yeah man, comparing genital mutilation to genital mutilation is so ridiculous.
Come back to me when circumcision involves:
- the removal of several parts of male genitalia besides the foreskin.
- increased risk of getting infections, chronic pain, cysts, or the inability to conceive children.
- the explicit purpose to control men's sexuality.
I don't think there's much point with arguing with him at this point. He's reached the point that he's effectively making the argument that rape is no worse than being given a wet willie.
Dude, I am 100% serious when I say this, circumcision is legitimate genital mutilation. I am not playing devil's advocate or being in "the middle," this is an issue I feel pretty strongly about. You all have my oath here, that for the rest of This Post(tm), I am going to be completely serious and try my best not to just sneer at you guys down my nose.
>- the removal of several parts of male genitalia besides the foreskin.
Are you saying that minor examples of female genital mutilation are okay? It's fine to just remove a bit? If this is NOT what you're saying, elaborate.
>- increased risk of getting infections, chronic pain, cysts, or the inability to conceive children.
Actually, having an open wound on an infant's penis, such as from a circumcision, is pretty prone to infection, due to the fact that it frequently gets covered in poop.
>- the explicit purpose to control men's sexuality.
I distinctly remember reading a cited study on why circumcision became so widespread in western cultures, to the point of it being the "default" in America. It was to prevent boys from masturbating, because it significantly dulls the penis's sensitivity.
Back to you, while I'm being serious.
Are you implying that "cosmetic" genital mutilation is acceptable? Because I know in some examples of female genital mutilation, it's just the labia that are removed. In fact, let's make a hypothetical: if a girl has prominent labia minora, they are surgically removed without her consent, as an infant or child, for the purpose of aesthetics, and because rumors say that it helps them not get so many yeast infections later in life. Is this ethical or acceptable? Please explain why, or why not.
>It was to prevent boys from masturbating, because it significantly dulls the penis's sensitivity.
As someone who still has his foreskin: that is complete bullshit. The only "fun" sensations my foreskin is ever responsible for is getting my pubes caught in the folds and nearly crying from the pain of having my pubes pulled out by my own cock.
Note: This is something I am willing to reasonably debate rather than just laughing about how I'm better than the other people on this board. If you have no retorts or counterpoints, that's fine, but if you do, please refrain from just being like "OH LOOK, SLOWPOKE IS IN THE DEBATE THREAD AGAIN."
If you have something to reply with, please do so. I'm even willing to look for an online version of that study I mentioned in my last post, if you don't feel like looking for one yourself.
Mate, the foreskin containing a ton of nerve endings, especially at that bit on the bottom side of the glans where it all gathers in one place, is...common knowledge? I can google "foreskin nerve endings" if you want, but I kind of feel like everyone knows this? Do they not? Honest question, do people think that it's just a bit of extra skin like those moles that grow outwards like tiny tumors?
(in my region we call those moles "skin tags," not sure if that's universal)
Oh also, having the head of the penis constantly exposed dulls the nerve endings in it as well, for the same reason that manual laborers don't have a lot of sensation in their hands.
>Mate, the foreskin containing a ton of nerve endings, especially at that bit on the bottom side of the glans where it all gathers in one place, is...common knowledge? I can google "foreskin nerve endings" if you want, but I kind of feel like everyone knows this? Do they not? Honest question, do people think that it's just a bit of extra skin like those moles that grow outwards like tiny tumors?
Okay, well I have foreskin, and again--it doesn't have any nice feelings to it. I don't know what to tell you. You can cite all the research you want, but you're still trying to tell someone who has a body part you don't how it actually feels to have that body part. The head is where all the enjoyable sensation is regardless of whether or not you have foreskin. Unless the feeling you're wanting to have is that you'd like the chafing from holding it wrong to hurt more. Maybe it does that? Because I get some wicked scabs if I'm not careful. You want my scabs?
>Unless the feeling you're wanting to have is that you'd like the chafing from holding it wrong to hurt more. Maybe it does that? Because I get some wicked scabs if I'm not careful. You want my scabs?
As someone who has a foreskin and used to spend hella time jacking off, I have no idea how to respond to this. I am replying to your post because I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring you, but I have never ever chafed or gotten scabs, and the fact that you have is giving me sympathy cringes and also making me feel like uh, something might be wrong there.
I am elaborating that I do have a foreskin since I get the idea that you don't think I do, but otherwise uh, I'm just wishing you the best.
So you're saying you honestly believe that young circumcised men who were circumsed as infants have been as badly wronged as women who have had their clitorises removed as infants, and that you don't see why people might take this as an absurd statement to make?
Fam, I'm saying that chopping off parts of babies' reproductive organs is MAD messed up, period.
I'm not gonna say whether someone who was stabbed to death has it worse than someone who was shot to death or not, I have no idea, but what I am saying is that innocent people being [x]ed to death needs to stop.
I wouldn't have said anything at all, except for the fact that (for the sake of this analogy), someone said
>some people think that it's an issue to get stabbed to death. Those same people think it's a non-issue to get shot to death.
And someone else replied
>Are you seriously comparing the pain of being stabbed to death to that of a quick shooting?
That is JACKED, my dude, there shouldn't be a contest of any sorts there, it should be universally agreed that cutting off parts of infants' genitals for aesthetics is plain-out wrong.
No, you saw someone saying it was irrational for women to treat female genital mutilation as a feminist issue because circumcision exists, and when I called him out on it you came to his defense because, one can only assume, you agree that it is irrational to consider female genital mutilation to be a higher priority for sexual politics than male circumcision.
See, you're not really addressing any of the points I made here, you're just reframing the summary of this conversation.
Like I said, if you have no counterpoint, it's fine, but I am trying to have an actual discussion, not talk about what it might mean to have a discussion.
You're the one who is moving the goalposts, Slowpoke. This was a conversation about the irrationality of feminism and how X MEN'S ISSUE was the equivalent of Y WOMEN'S ISSUE. The only way your entire argument works is if you agree that this men's issue is the equal of y women's issue. The conversation was never "Men should absolutely be circumcised!" The conversation was "Men being circumcised is just as bad as women having their clitoris removed." And you took the "agree" position on that argument.
Stop moving the goalposts.
"KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.
“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”
No, I was only talking about how they claim to get harassed when someone calls them out on being wrong.
FGM includes labia removal, or removal of the clittoral hood. It's not just clit removal dumbass.
They're just boys.
XY animals aren't people anyway.
Obama Signs Executive Order Authorizing Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizen to Advance Government Initiatives.
Man this guy is just the best president.
And according to sources it will be as effective as the "nudge" known as Obamacare. So doing the exact opposite of the intended result.
Its no surprise that Google and Facebook are weekly regulars for meetings at the white house.
He's been making vines and Daily Show appearances to brainwash the youth into thinking he's hip and cool, to distract from when he does shit like this.
he's never really been cool, just highly managed and filtered and never really been happy he can't rule by decree officially, though by the way the other branches have behaved they might as well go home. This is just a rehash of the old 50-60s era stuff because people have lost all trust in the government, don't see how this will help any of that.
So I was just reading about it--the Breitbart guy who did the Sarah Nyberg hitpiece is the same guy who, over the past year, has done similar hit pieces on everyone who criticizes GamerGate and has consistently been either wrong or lying about everything he said, right? Why are we still treating him as an actual news source?
Sarah Nyberg herself confirmed it?
I guess even a broken clock is right if the dice roll well.
Why is his bias relevant? If Sarah admitted to being a pedophile herself, then the facts are true regardless.
I just find it amusing that GamerGate counts among their heroes an absolutely absurd yellow journalist with zero journalistic integrity.
It's not yellow journalism by definition if it's true and well-researched.
>Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news
>It's not yellow journalism by definition if it's true and well-researched.
That is precisely my point. His work is 90% false and poorly researched. Like his "outing" of Shaun King as "not black."
The article stops abruptly with "The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government…" without going into any specifics, and given that the RINO propaganda machine would say every last bad thing about Obama that it possibly could, I'm guessing those goals are fairly benign and this is tinfoil hat material.
He has weekly meetings with Google and Facebook so it's pretty much just adjusting according to social media stuff. So its much ado about nothing. And even it it was malicious "nudge" brainwashing great Britain shows its effectiveness to be quite low.
Milo is the ED of journalism, 75% of what he writes is pure provocation, but when he's right , he's REALLY right.
Britain - A land where the average citizen can't take a shit without a helmet and a CCTV camera watching for their safety, but the prime minister can fuck a pig carcass and get away with it for years.
I guess you think every clock in the world that doesn't match your own shitty clock is broken. Buy a new clock you stupid cheapskate.
>His work is 90% false and poorly researched. Like his "outing" of Shaun King as "not black."
Shaun King is white dude, he's whiter than Rachel Dolezal, he's whiter than Eminem. He's not even an octaroon, he's 100% white, pretending to be black. And his shitty social media image tricks managed to fool quite a few people into thinking he was black.
Oh and he also stole fucking donation money.
>After learning the child had not been buried as of five months after the shooting, and the child's mother had moved into a homeless shelter, he started the fund to assist the Rice family; however, family attorney Timothy Kucharski stated in May 2015 that neither he nor the Rice family had heard of King or the fundraiser, nor had they received any money. Eventually, the money raised was seized by the court and placed into a trust for the Rice family. King and the Rice family's legal counsel, Benjamin Crump, then started a second charity drive for the Rice family, with the proceeds going directly to the family. An additional $25,000 was raised.
I'm not really that sad when liberals get ultra gullible, lose their money, and end up looking like idiots for believing a con man (or woman)..... But for your own sake you might consider exercising your HPA axis.
>Shaun King is white dude, he's whiter than Rachel Dolezal, he's whiter than Eminem. He's not even an octaroon, he's 100% white, pretending to be black. And his shitty social media image tricks managed to fool quite a few people into thinking he was black.
Unless you listen to his mother or look at any photo of him in high school.
>Oh and he also stole fucking donation money.
The very paragraph you're quoting mentions at the end that after the misunderstanding he arranged a second drive which gave even more money to them.
That was true though. Just because you like someone doesn't make it untrue.
lol, look at this white kid.
The instagram filter, haircut and the mustache are all designed to make him look more black. He's been faking it for awhile so he could enter a black mens college. The truth is at an actually young age where he couldn't pull this shit he looks whiter than me, and I'm European going back at least 12 generations.
I'm telling you he's like Rachel Dolezal, sure she has pics she looks sort of 1/12th black, but she's fucking not either.
>The very paragraph you're quoting mentions at the end that after the misunderstanding he arranged a second drive which gave even more money to them.
Oh he was forced to start a new drive for the family once he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar? DAMN SON HES LIKE GHANDI, SUCH A GOOD GUY
Look into every charity he's involved in, he's taking in millions, spending thousands, and people are noticing.
>Both Breitbart and CNN have spoken to a family member that confirmed King's true identity. Several childhood friends have also confirmed the same.
>Regarding his allegations of being the victim of a hate crime because of the color of his skin, those same friends said the incident was actually over the fact that he was dating a black girl at the time.
Ahmed Mohammeds clock is a purposeful stunt, Judge Napolitano says there may be a fraud case.
Yea that cord made it super fishy, congrats to all that rushed to his defense of his "neat clock" which really was just a clock.
Yea that Zero Tolerance thing has ruined many lives for decades. Did think it kinda odd that a clock a kid could "build" into a case would have a cord and not just be battery powered.
If people thought that shit was a bomb, God help anyone that goes outside with an opened computer.
Also, I don't know why anyone cares if the free shit he got was "deserved" or not. There are kids right now with parents so rich that they won't have to work a day in their life. And we somehow care about some 14 year old getting free shit after he got dragged through the mud? Bitch, please.
And do we have a Beitbart writer in this thread defending Shaun King story? I don't even know why you're still talking about this when it was revealed that whole "story" was something fabricated by a 20 year old autist who literally argued with himself on the internet. Oh wait, it's because you're a retarded hobo.
That's just it--they didn't think it was a bomb. They didn't evacuate the school and they didn't put the clock in any sort of bomb-proof carrying device or attempt to disarm it via bomb squad. They just wanted to show the brown kid who was boss.
And the police have confirmed that he didn’t try to pass it off as a “hoax bomb”; for that to have been the case, he would’ve needed to tell someone it was a bomb, and no one ever said he did. (That’s why the charges relating to having a “hoax bomb” or perpetrating such a hoax were later dropped.)
It looked a bit like a suitcase bomb, no one believed it was though, because bombers generally don't show off. The problem was that the kid went from teacher to teacher showing it off, and every teacher told him that it was fine, but he should keep it to himself. Finally he pissed some teacher off with the clock constantly bleeping in class.
He was mostly shat on because people thought he was trying to generate a panic and be an edgy asstard, so they called some cops on him to nip it in the bud and prevent him from doing something dumb like bringing a gun to class next.
>that whole "story" was something fabricated by a 20 year old autist who literally argued with himself on the internet
It was investigated and confirmed by major media sources. There's even a group of black people from BLM saying they'll give $25k to a charity of his choice if he submits a DNA test.
Kansas loves them some voter fraud hysteria. From going to the Supreme Court to try and make doubly-sure that non-citizens can’t vote in their elections to setting up a voter fraud website where citizens can report every kind of voter fraud except the kinds that have actually happened in the state, Kansas is on the forefront of voter fraud readiness and protection.
Except, perhaps, when it comes to the machines they use to record their votes.
According to the Wichita Eagle, Wichita State mathematician Beth Clarkson has found irregularities in election returns from Sedgwick County, along with other counties throughout the United States, but has faced stiff opposition from the state in trying to confirm whether the irregularities are fraud or other, less-nefarious anomalies.
Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.
Clarkson’s interest in election returns was piqued by a 2012 paper released by analysts Francois Choquette and James Johnson showing the same pattern of election returns, which favor establishment Republican candidates in primaries and general elections. The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity, as well.
You can read the paper in full here.
Voting machine, via Wikimedia Commons
Voting machine, via Wikimedia Commons
While Clarkson has found the same statistical irregularity in a number of localities, her efforts to confirm whether they amount to fraud have been centered on Sedgwick County, Kansas, due to the locality’s use of Real Time Voting Machine Paper Tapes, which provide a paper trail that other localities don’t have. However, her efforts to verify Sedgwick County’s election returns have been repeatedly shut down.
She first requested a recount of the 2013 election, but the timeframe in which a recount could have been requested had passed. She then requested the machines’ computer records from the Sedgwick County registrar, which told her to kindly shove off and sue Secretary of State Kris Kobach if she wanted the records so badly.
When Clarkson initially filed her lawsuit requesting the paper records from the voting machines, her suit was denied because a judge ruled that the paper records constituted ballots, shielding them from the state’s open records law. This ruling is suspect at best, given that the paper records do not have voters’ names assigned to them; they only record when and how a ballot was cast for recount purposes.
She then sought a court order giving her access to a sample of voting records in order to check voting machines’ error rates. This order was ignored by the Secretary of State’s office, despite their being legally required to respond to her within 30 days. The office later said that they didn’t realize they had received her request.
Given Kansas’s professed diehard commitment to combatting election fraud, one would think that they would be all for analysis into whether the integrity of their elections have been compromised. Apparently you’d be wrong.
>He was mostly shat on because people thought he was trying to generate a panic and be an edgy asstard, so they called some cops on him to nip it in the bud and prevent him from doing something dumb like bringing a gun to class next.
And everyone involved was stupid for thinking this.
the gun idea is the mentality that has been bred into things now. "See something, say something"
What do you mean? I don't follow.
I’m gonna quote The Weekly Sift here:
>There’s another lesson to learn from the self-congratulating response the local officials had. For example, the letter to parents sent out by the high school principal acknowledges no mistakes, makes no apologies, and implies that Ahmed did something against the school’s code of conduct. It goes on to suggest “this is a good time to remind your child how important it is to immediately report any suspicious items and/or suspicious behavior they observe to any school employee so we can address it right away.”
>Such policies are sometimes called “see something, say something” — the PopeHat blog refers to them as “willful paranoia” — and Ahmed’s story underlines how they are inherently discriminatory. What people think they “see” — a Muslim kid with a bomb, for example — depends on what they expect to see. And that, in turn, depends on the stereotypes in their heads. So see-something-say-something is a paved road that runs directly from the unspoken bigotry from our collective unconscious to bigoted action in the physical world.
>For a completely different example of how this works, consider the death of John Crawford III. Crawford was a 22-year-old black man shopping in a Walmart near Dayton, Ohio. The store video shows him pick up a toy gun and then wander around talking on his cellphone, doing nothing particularly threatening or out of the ordinary. But a white shopper “saw something” — a thug with a gun — and “said something” by calling 911. The police showed up expecting to face armed resistance, “saw” Crawford with a rifle, and gunned him down before he had a chance to understand what was happening.
Okay, I have a much better understanding of what he meant. Thanks.
Well I wasn't expecting this. Tomorrow I'll have to actually look up a list of people running for president.
If you want go ahead and blame no tolerance policies, blame Brady Campaign for terrorizing soccer moms, don't blame "racism" that never fucking occurred.
We all know if the kid was white the situation would have played out exactly the same... except we never would have heard of him because it's not a juicy media story, so he would have been expelled, started working as a newspaper boy, quit when some old pervert kept inviting him in for iced tea, searched for a job for awhile before getting accepted at costco where he worked his way up the ladder to general manager.
Who would want to print that story?
He's such an ass.
>We all know if the kid was white the situation would have played out exactly the same
>We all know if the kid was white the situation would have played out exactly the same
That joke isn’t funny, man.
Ahmed's family may be facing a fraud suit for the money collected.
Not surprising, since his sister got suspended for the same thing 3 years ago.
According to Mark Cuban, it was his 6th period teacher who told him to put the clock away into his bag. When he argued back, s/he escalated it to the administrators.
Funny how this information ever seems to come from Breitbart. Why will no other outlet else break the serious case of how Batboy married the Moon Man?!
Mainstream media had the story they wanted and ran with it "Texas is racist and Islamophobia caused him to be singled out for just having an amazing "homemade clock". Media very rarely will go into investigative journalism mode and never when it will harm their allied political party.
Yeah, the media should just go hardcore into this 14-year-old Muslim kid and expose him for the vile piece of trash he really is! That'll make scurred white people feel better, I'm sure of it.
Which is why it's good you have a tabloid to fall back on when you want people to tell you stories that no one else has the balls to make up.
>genuinely thinking it wouldnt
>even though its actually fucking happened before
It must hurt being this dumb.
Are you not watching TV now, it's everywhere. Also Breitbart didn't source the story, it's a direct quote from the girl.
>After the MSNBC segment, Eyman and I sit down in the hallway where she says the same thing happened to her as Ahmed.
>“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”
>“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”
Not precisely the same situation. Ahmed didn't go around telling people his clock was a bomb, and not even the police thought it was a bomb. Nobody has stepped forward to say he tried to pass his clock off as a “hoax bomb” or did anything to make people think he was doing that.
But this all rolls back around to “zero tolerance” rules, anyway. Schools aren’t allowed to ask questions about these sorts of things and handle them with nuance; they have to punish students for anything even remotely resembling a threat. Yes, it blows when anyone is caught up in this sort of bullshit. (I have personal experience with that.) But that girl probably wasn’t arrested or hauled out of her school in handcuffs. Ahmed was.
When a white kid has to go through the same level of bullshit as Ahmed had to go through because of zero tolerance bullshittery (and “see something, say something” dumbassery), give me a call and I’ll care. Until then, please shove the smear campaign directed at a 14-year-old kid all the way up your ass.
>It must hurt being this dumb.
You seem to know a lot about being so dumb that it hurts. Why does your handler let you post on +4 anyway?
Seen it happen quite a few times actually, some places take zero tolerance so far that they break into a kids car to get the tire iron or other "weapon" out to prove the kid guilty.
Seen it happen quite a few times actually, some places take zero tolerance so far that they break into a kids car to get the tire iron or other "weapon" out to prove the kid guilty.
>hes a genius
>hes a genius
>hes a genius
>hes a genius
This shit reminds me of that Bioshock bullshit.
Protip: dont resist arrest it's fucking stupid
This is the closest to the right thread for this, but holy fuck, some Sovereign Citizens are fucking retarded. Not necessarily for their belief in the idea, but some of the shit they say while resisting arrest.
(Alone in a car pulled over for speeding)
>"Can you prove that I'm driving?"
>"No I'm not, I was travelling."
(being arrested for possession of marijuana in a vehicle)
>"Call the police!"
Hopefully they have to pay for those broken windows.
They did handle it with nuance. The teacher asked him to put his clock in his bag or his locker instead of carrying it out in the open. When he refused, the gave him what is basically an in-school detention.
>They did handle it with nuance.
>Called the cops.
Pick one, homie.
They also call the cops if you get in a fight or fail a drug test. Quite reasonable. He didn't go to jail.
>fight or fail a drug test.
Totally comparable to bringing a clock to school.
That's not even a reasonable way to deal with the situations you named, much less making a clock.
His failure to communicate is what escalated the situation. I once brought a cap-gun to school and was told by a teacher to keep it in my bag. If I ignored that, and carried it around in plain sight, what do you think comes next?
I'd have called your parents to school, not the cops.
I'd have called your parents to school, not the cops.
Usually when a kid won't put away their phone it just goes in the teacher's desk.
>I'd have called your parents to school, not the cops.
Aaaaand here we are, back around to no tolerance policies being retarded, which affects any race pupil.
It shows black and white people being treated equally badly by a flawed system, so we're not interested in it, no thanks! We only want to watch stuff that reinforces our belief in a fundamentally racist system, because if that's not true then our $10,000 degree in social studies is worthless.
>Aaaaand here we are, back around to no tolerance policies being retarded, which affects any race pupil.
I wasn't disagreeing with that.
>It shows black and white people being treated equally badly by a flawed system
No, it shows white people doing things that would've gotten black people in the same situation killed by the cops.
He is still alive, retard and he got a dozen scholarships.
He's saying the situations aren't comparable.
White delinquents don't get free shit.
Do liberals agree with this definition of harassment?
I'd say it's *a* definition of harassment, like a swarm of insects can be said to harass. But if you aren't using the legal definition of harassment then nothing which deals with harassment in the legal sense is reasonalby said to back your arguments and effectively means you're complaining about annoyance. Terms are not used wiith the utmost clarity when it comes to harassment, assualt, and battery.
She also wants to define insults as "violent speech" and make it have criminal consequences.
In more important news: Hillary perjured herself.
She signed a sworn statement that she released all her emails to investigators, and this turns out to be false.
To date she's escaped criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, treason, misuse of state funds, corruption and more... lets see if she can escape an iron clad case of perjury!
This is kind of like watching David Copperfield escape a cage or something.
>John Boehner resigns
The lid just came off the crazy didn't it?
Pretty much. He was practically the only person standing in the way of a GOP that would rather have the government shut down instead of letting it fund Planned Parenthood(’s non-abortion Title X services), and now that roadblock is gone.
No, his resignation doesn't take effect until after the budget vote. It's more like he's falling on his sword to get the budget passed.
Y'know, I understand where you're coming from, but you do realize what an asshole you're coming off as right now, yeah? You seem quite bitter about the idea that you might be expected to act civilly toward people, and that's fucked up.
No, I don't think insults should be criminalized. But there's pretty much zero percent chance of that happening, and your overblown reaction just makes it seem like you wouldn't have any idea how to act in a world where you have to act decent toward people all the time.
Not him, but no he wasn't. Literally all he said was that insults are not violent speech. Which they are not. Instead you're coming off like a tumblrina.
>Not him, but no he wasn't. Literally all he said was that insults are not violent speech. Which they are not. Instead you're coming off like a tumblrina.
Always amused when I see someone whose only response is "tumblr!" whenever anyone points out they're kind of supporting douchebaggery.
Seriously, it’s possible to both believe in the ideals of Free Speech and disapprove of certain types of speech.
But the people calling for censorship don't act the slightest bit civil. Do you see how frustrating it is to see professional assholes pretending to be activists for "compassion and empathy"?
It's impossible to want to put people in prison for calling you a liar, and still believe in free speech.
>But the people calling for censorship don't act the slightest bit civil. Do you see how frustrating it is to see professional assholes pretending to be activists for "compassion and empathy"?
And we're not calling for censorship. I specifically said that I disagree with the idea that insults should be outlawed. But I think that whining about "hugboxes" and "censorship" like this because of a post by a random person whose opinions are not widespread and have no chance of ever affecting your life makes you seem like you are just paranoid about the day that someone tells you to stop calling people faggots. And that's just really pathetic.
>It's impossible to want to put people in prison for calling you a liar, and still believe in free speech.
No shit. There are established legal limits for speech and being called a liar isn't one of them. THAT SAID: if someone is going out of their way to run a campaign of harassment wherein you receive several hundred—maybe several thousand—messages per day that call you a liar (or worse), maybe you can see how someone living in a similar situation might think the person running said campaign deserves a little jail time. But that lone opinion (and that’s all it is) doesn’t deserve to, nor will it ever, become law—so your bitchfit about Anita trying to “censor” people is moot.
>Do you see how frustrating it is to see professional assholes pretending to be activists for "compassion and empathy"?
Yeah. It’s called GamerGate.
>There are established legal limits for speech and being called a liar isn't one of them.
Technically, in the right context, it totally is. "Liar" is not a subjective thing like "idiot" or "whore," it's an objective statement of fact, and if someone can be shown to be saying it maliciously and knowing that it's not true, you could easily make a solid case for defamation.
>No shit. There are established legal limits for speech and being called a liar isn't one of them. THAT SAID: if someone is going out of their way to run a campaign of harassment wherein you receive several hundred—maybe several thousand—messages per day that call you a liar (or worse), maybe you can see how someone living in a similar situation might think the person running said campaign deserves a little jail time.
So, Young Earth Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Change Denialists, etc. etc., would all be justified? Anyone who is extremely wrong about something is included here.
If they were undergoing a campaign of harassment as I outlined in that post, yes, they would likely feel justified in thinking the people behind such campaigns deserved jail time for harassment. That doesn’t make their feelings—their opinions—a solid foundation for a law that could very well silence legitimate speech. Any law concerning online harassment would have to consider whether an expressed governmental interest in stopping online harassment would place too broad a restriction on First Amendment rights.
Online harassment is fucking cruel and anyone who does it should rightly feel like a piece of shit for doing it. But I wouldn’t support a law making it illegal unless I felt assured such a law would not infringe upon my 1A rights.
Harassment is already illegal. There's no reason online harassment shouldn't be as well.
Isn't it? It's just harassment through alternate media. No need for a separate law.
Here’s the problem with that idea: how can we define “online harassment” in a way that both makes any anti-online harassment law explicit about what it will punish and protects the First Amendment rights of citizens?
Any ass with a vague understanding of laws and such can suggest using the law as a sledgehammer to pound out the things they don’t like; the problem is that in using such an approach, you can hit innocent people in the process. These kinds of laws require the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel to make sure fully legal activities and innocent people don’t run afoul of the law. Saying “online harassment should be illegal” is the sledgehammer approach; a more nuanced law that can’t be summed up in a single sentence or idea is the scalpel approach. Problem is, people always want the sledgehammer instead of the scalpel because the latter takes time and the former is a quick fix.
Yes, Slowpoke, I'm sure you want to go to bat for people who make rape threats and all, but that is in fact assault and is not protected by the first amendment.
Online harassment is already illegal, you can report it to the FBI. Which is something Anita never fucking did because it was obviously trolling, insults or just criticism. Not harassment.
>No, I don't think insults should be criminalized.
Wow you're coming off as SUCH an asshole, you know that right? Quit kind of, like, supporting douchebaggery.
This is how dumb you sound.
Why are you people even still responding to Slowpoke's rampant stupidity?
I'm still curious as to why people are even still making the "online doesn't count as real interaction" when we've had cases in the last few years where people made threats online and looked to follow on them. The most recent one that I remember was the Pokemon event shit, where some dudes threatened to shoot up the event and were caught driving across state lines with guns and a fuckload of ammo. That kind of shit wouldn't fly in real life (if you tried telling your coworkers you were going to shoot up the joint, don't be surprised if someone investigates it) and it shouldn't fly on the internet either. Especially when we see cases like the one I just mentioned where said retards were actually looking to follow through with their threats.
If this bugs you, you could, you know, not make threats. Of course, I don't think anyone here makes rape/death threats, so I'm not sure why you'd want to die on that hill.
>because it was obviously trolling, insults or just criticism. Not harassment.
Is that why she cancelled that speech at the college when some autist decided it was a good idea to threaten the shoot the place up?
Also, "you didn't report it" doesn't make it not a crime. That's some serious fallacious logic. As an example, I knew people in college who didn't bother to report some muggings because the campus cops couldn't do much about it after the fact. That doesn't mean that mugging people was legal in my college town.
Even if she didn't report the crime (which is not even a claim that I know is true or not--but it doesn't matter and I don't even care as it's largely irrelevant) doesn't mean it's not a crime. I'm sure someone is going to go super in depth about this, but that would be a derailment. I just wanted to point out the part of your post that made no sense.
No... a threat is a possible prelude to assault if it's judged to be credible. I kind of despair having to say this but assault is assault - an attempt to commit battery. Meaning someone someone has beat you with a wrench, or tried to beat you with a wrench and you got away fast enough.
The credibility factor is important, the person has to live at least on the same continent before anyone would judge it credible.... if the credibility is ignored then everyone saying "you're about to be raped" in a video game would be criminally liable.
>The credibility factor is important, the person has to live at least on the same continent before anyone would judge it credible
I'm not sure why this is really a point. I mean, I don't have numbers, but I'm fairly certain that out of all the harassment that gets thrown around on the internet, at least some of it comes from a person on the same continent.
And to refer to a previous example at that Pokemon event...those dudes were literally driving across state lines with hardcore weaponry.
>Which is something Anita never fucking did
The FBI has confirmed that they did, though.
An assault is making someone believe violence is going to be committed against them. There are different definitions by jurisdiction, but threats of violence are considered assault in many of them. It's also stalking and harassment, of course, but I assumed that went without saying. Regardless of which law it's violating, it's not protected speech.
I also don't understand how you're not ashamed to live in a world where "everyone saying 'you're about to be raped' in a video game would be criminally liable" is something that would affect anyone.
>Is that why she cancelled that speech at the college when some autist decided it was a good idea to threaten the shoot the place up?
Really bad example because the venue did report to the FBI, and the FBI investigated the threat, only to find it not credible.
And they were right.
A week or so later @sanc broke the story that the originator of the threats was some journalist from Brazil using a popular hashtag (#gg) to push his social media website.
>Also, "you didn't report it" doesn't make it not a crime.
If a person says they were afraid for their life but didn't call the cops, this kind of strains the credulity of their "fear".
Know what else is illegal? Swatting.
Also, your image is retarded and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of....well, everything. Disapproving of something and lobbying for its being banned are entirely different things. You can think a person is a heinous wart on humanity's backside and that they should be shunned by the rest of humanity for the things they say and still think that the law shouldn't prevent them from saying things.
>implying my statement is doublethink
The ACLU defended the rights of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, and I’m sure several members of the former group disagreed with the latter group’s message. As much as someone might hate the things Anita Sarkeesian says (for whatever reason), their hatred of her message or the way she delivers it is not grounds to have it banned/censored. Hell, I think a lot of MRAs say the most pig-disgusting sexist bullshit I can think of, but even I know better than to call for them to be silenced. Disliking a legal form of speech is not a valid argument for banning/censoring it; anyone who argues otherwise is a fool.
>If a person says they were afraid for their life but didn't call the cops, this kind of strains the credulity of their "fear".
No it really doesn't. All sorts of people come from abusive households and don't tell anyone. It doesn't make them any less scared. That's just something you're telling yourself.
>I kind of despair having to say this but assault is assault - an attempt to commit battery. Meaning someone someone has beat you with a wrench, or tried to beat you with a wrench and you got away fast enough.
Actually, assault is the creation of aprehension of violence.
And I think it's fair to say that threatening someone with murder or rape, then listing their home address to prove you know where they live, creates a pretty damned strong apprehension of violence.
He didn't talk about the legal aspect of free speech, he talked about believing in the ideology of free speech. This is completely different, because the 2500 year old ideology comes with a certain set of beliefs. Disapproving of speech is contrary to the ideals of free speech.
The fact that you have no reading comprehension shows your lack of understanding of ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT!
>Disapproving of speech is contrary to the ideals of free speech.
No. No, it is not. I can think someone has the right to call a black man “nigger” without thinking that speech is socially acceptable or worth taking seriously.
>The touching of another person with an intent to harm, without that person's consent.
The apprehension of violence is there in case they miss, or otherwise don't complete their assault. Such as if a martial artist can avoid or deflect an attack, or the attacker is too fucking drunk to connect.
> Conduct which intentionally arouses apprehension of an imminent battery constitites an assault. Shaking a fist at another person, lunging at someone in an effort to attack and swinging an axe at another person are actionable assaults.
Online threats aren't the apprehension being talked about in the context of assault. Apprehension in that context is the breeze the axe makes as it misses the victims head.
Reminds me a bit of creationist plebs using the general meaning of theory in the context of theory of evolution.
>listing their home address
If this person has a publicly available home address, such as on a white pages, blog or face book, it's kind of a moot point. Which is the case for most celebrities.
The question of credulity is solved by investigating how many threats were made (a single one is usually dismissed), by checking whether the person making the threats is in a position to actually go to their home and do something, by checking if the person making the threat is doing that to just one person or if this is something they do to everyone (troll/reaction seeker) and so on.
I'm suspecting more and more that you're a dog pretending to be a human with the way you so consistently fail to understand basic human concepts in weird ways.
>youre mentally challenged
>youre a dog
>inb4 im an ayyyy
Dude I understand you feel the need to dehumanize your 'enemy' which helps you dismiss what I'm saying... but you can do this in your head, you don't have to post it every time the thought surfaces.
It's a rhetorical device to mock you for your unique brand of logic and the way your information is always just one or two degrees removed from reality. I thought you were fighting in favor of people being allowed to insult people like that. Clearly you must approve of the things I'm saying about you if you believe in the ideology of free speech, by your own logic?
The homeless and mentally challenged are still people. That's not dehumanizing.
And who ever got called an ayy lmao in this thread? That's a really specific denial. Are you an alien, bruv?
make having mean thoughts illegal imo tbh fam
>Why are you people even still responding to Slowpoke's rampant stupidity?
Well I mean, I tried to have a serious conversation the other day, but no one was willing to and just kept launching appeals to emotion into the sky, hoping that someone would see them, and generally being nonconversational, so I guess now I'm back to posting like this.
>Well I mean, I tried to have a serious conversation the other day
Also, there were some paragraphs of text there to preemptively address what you might have said next (you know--an actual thought out posts and not just a lol/kek/lel/whatever), but you went and ignored that and took offense to someone (rightfully) calling you stupid. Hell, even the guy I responded to put more thought into his post than you did, and that was a single sentence.
This is part of why we think you're massively retarded. But hey, if you want to keep on acting like a retard, go right ahead, dipshit. If you want people to stop treating you like a remedial child, you can start by not acting like one. While I'll admit these insults of mine are not particularly becoming of me, at least I'm trying at some part to engage, which is more than anyone can say for your last couple of posts in this thread.
Criticism isn't harassment. You have free speech, but you don't have protection from the consequences of your speech. If you say retarded shit people will call you out on it.
Why do liberals try to conflate bomb threats with youtube comments and videos? You always say "nerdbros are afraid of criticism", but it's people like Anita trying to make criticism against the law.
What are you even talking about?
>Criticism isn't harassment.
Funny, I don’t recall having all this straw in my mouth a few minutes ago.
Sometimes in order to win arguments, you have to make up arguments for the other side. I think there's a term for this, something to do with hay.
Okay yeah but, even if you're going to make a strawman argument, isn't it expected to have some sort of explanation or train of thought that leads to it? I'm pretty sure even a strawman argument's not just supposed to be random words thrown together.
The thrust of this particular scarecrow's dick is that the criticism Anita Sarkeesian and women like her receive isn’t harassment, so Anita and her ilk are trying to ban any criticism aimed towards them. That haydick is limp is because it avoids a very real reality for those women: criticism isn't all they get.
Those of us talking about online harassment campaigns aren’t referring to criticism (however legit it might be) of Anita’s work or the cultural critique offered by female writers such as Alyssa Rosenberg or sites like The Mary Sue. We’re referring to the ongoing campaigns of insults and threats lobbied towards such women/sites via email, social media, and even the “Outernet”. I can disagree with some of Anita’s conclusions without going “she’s a lying cunt who needs to kill herself” every day for a year through every possible outlet that she might ever look at.
Okay, and? Phrases such as “you suck” and “you’re a liar” aren’t really substantive forms of criticism, and “hate videos” likely doesn’t refer to the more substantive criticisms of her work. I see nothing in that quote to make me believe she’d like to see criticism of her work banned forever.
>criticism isn't all they get.
Yes it is.
>ongoing campaigns of insults and threats
These are the criticisms moron, the insults and threats are a direct response to idiocy she's vomiting over youtube and twatter, she wouldn't be getting them if she wasn't taking such a brain-dead stance.
Imagine if a man brought up toxic femininity, do you think he might get some well-deserved hate mail?
>Those of us
If you want to improve the world just kill yourself, because you sure aren't improving things by censoring shit or forcing people to be polite like some old biddy from the Victorian era.
>aren’t really substantive forms of criticism
They are still criticism, jackass.
Also you're ignoring that people TRY going the logic route,and it just doesn't work with feminists, they are impervious to statistics that prove them wrong.
>criticism isn't all they get.
It's objectively true that it isn't all they get. We JUST talked about the threat of a school shooting.
See, this is why we started calling you hobos. You are batshit crazy. Like, mate, this isn't even beginning to approach trolling. It's just stupidity.
>homeless people are insane
That's still surprisingly offensive coming from you more radical liberals.
I think Stone stopped calling people that when I pointed that out though, props on that.
So if I stop calling this dipshit a hobo, are you going to bother actually making on topic posts
Because it would be really nice if you stopped trying to derail the conversation into something unrelated. I'm also not sure what this has to do with anything, because we aren't having a conversation about "being PC"
Also, "liberalism" has nothing to do with that. A conservative dude can be PC to the point of not cursing.
And I couldn't think of a better term than PC, which I didn't want to use, because that's recently been taken over by retards who want to be racist/sexist/whatever without being called out on it. I'll admit I'm not being sensitive to all downtrodden members of society, but I'm not being a whiny bitch babby about being called out on it either.
Their bubbles are made of some tough shit, impervious to facts, impervious to irony...
> We JUST talked about the threat of a school shooting.
Which was investigated and turned out to be a marketing trick, read the whole reply.
Why does it matter what we post when you obviously aren't reading the things.
>Also, "liberalism" has nothing to do with that. A conservative dude can be PC to the point of not cursing.
Considering slowpoke, me and the other anon are all liberals (or at least centrists), it's pretty damn obvious that wanting to censor things is not a partisan issue.
The thing slowpoke said is RADICAL liberals, because you are insane in the same way as RADICAL conservatives.
>because that's recently been taken over by retards who want to be racist/sexist/whatever without being called out on it
Oh you mean like Anita pushing the idea of toxic masculinity?
Muslim apostate and human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie banned from Warwick University, to protect Muslim sentiments from being hurt.
This is the world Anita wants you to live in, where feelings are more important than facts.
Whenever you want to censor insults or label them as violent speech, keep in mind that to a religious person, questioning their religion is a FAR worse insult than calling them cunts online, thus under the censorship laws you demand they will have the right to censor anyone criticizing their cult.
Rational people understand this because they've been fighting a female supremacy cult for awhile, which screams harassment at every criticism.
>Considering slowpoke, me and the other anon are all liberals (or at least centrists)
You're really, really not.
Do you know what toxic masculinity means because that's literally something that involves both genders
Fighting change because you enjoy/venerate the status quo is the definition of conservatism.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said, lad.
The only thing you ever bother to post on in these threads is arguing against progress towards a more inclusive culture, and arguments about why everything is already perfect and great and racism and sexism don't exist and everyone should shut up about those sorts of things.
So if someone starts a damaging, warhungry, racist or sexist political movement we shouldn't fight that change because fighting change is automatically conservative.
Recognize your beliefs aren't consistent, pick up a book on liberalism and read it, this will help you realize that Anita is fundamentally racist and sexist.
lol you've called us all kinds of names, tries to misframe our arguments, straight up told us what we are and what we believe and why we're arguing in these threads....... but we're the ones making strawmen...
Jesus christ, dude, do you think about ANYTHING other than Anita Sarkeesian?
It's nice that you're all bitching about SJWs, but my government is so shitty that the UN is launching an investigation into just how shitty it is.
>These are the criticisms moron, the insults and threats are a direct response to idiocy she's vomiting over youtube and twatter, she wouldn't be getting them if she wasn't taking such a brain-dead stance. […] They are still criticism, jackass.
Insults aren’t a substantive form of criticism. (And in certain cases, they could be defamation.) Threats are fucking threats, viable or otherwise. If you really think “I’m going to rape you up the ass you dumb cunt” counts as criticism, you have a heavily skewed vision of what makes up criticism—and most of it seems to come from the raging hateboner you have for Ms. Sarkeesian. (You know it's possible to not care about her, right? You should try it some time.)
I can disagree with ideas put forth by GOP politicians and people like Donald Trump or Ben Carson—who deserve just as many insults as Ms. Sarkeesian, if not more—without calling their positions “brain dead” or referring to them as “sons of bitches”. Of course, you’d probably think that my tongue-biting in that regard means I’m trying to enforce my views upon you or create a “climate of censorship”. Feel free to insult me, Ms. Sarkeesian, or anyone else you want, but when you do that, remember that I’m free to think what you’re saying is worthless.
>If you want to improve the world just kill yourself
“As a moral and ethical matter, I do take to heart the adage, usually attributed to Buddha, but reasonable no matter who said it first, that hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.” ~ John Scalzi
(This is also applicable to your hateboner for Ms. Sarkeesian.)
>you sure aren't improving things by censoring shit or forcing people to be polite like some old biddy from the Victorian era
Yeah, turning racial slurs, sexist language, and other forms of insults and demeaning language into socially unacceptable (yet perfectly legal) things to say is horrible! Why, it’s a goddamn fucking shame that white men can’t go around calling black men “niggers” without being thought of as gigantic racists for doing so, amirite‽
This isn't the 1950s any more. Times change, standards change, societies change. If you can’t stand the idea that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language is considered offensive and socially unacceptable, build yourself a fucking TARDIS and go back to a time where you can say those things without reproach. As for that “censorship” bit: again, times/standards/societies change, but seeing certain forms of speech as socially unacceptable does not make those forms of speech illegal (if it did, the Confederate battle flag would be illegal to make/own/fly). And sure, there’s probably some forms of “soft” censorship going on. But a book publisher/video game publisher/TV studio/movie studio/Internet service/etc. choosing not to publish or associate itself with offensive/“unacceptable” content does not, has not, and never will equal the same thing as the government legally barring someone from publishing that content. That’s doubly true in today’s world, given the rise of self-publishing options for virtually every form of creative work you can think of.
>you're ignoring that people TRY going the logic route, and it just doesn't work with feminists
And you’re painting every feminist ever—which, uh, kinda includes me—with a brush that says they’re illogical by default. What the fuck kind of logic is that?
>Anita is fundamentally racist and sexist
And yet most of us aren’t calling for the violation of Ms. Sarkeesian’s First Amendment rights, whereas you seem as if you’d be okay with someone shutting her up for good. What’s that you said about inconsistent beliefs?
>you've called us all kinds of names, tries to misframe our arguments, straight up told us what we are and what we believe and why we're arguing in these threads....... but we're the ones making strawmen
And you told me to kill myself, so don’t hold yourself up as a bastion of innocence and purity. You’re in the same gutter as us.
That sucks, Minifig, but I don't know how to really discuss that. Is anyone really supporting the UK Government's position on this other than the government itself and the billionaire class?
If that's what you've got out of the things I've said, seems more like a problem on your end.
If it makes you feel any better, my preacher no longer acknowledges my existence because I'm such a staunch and outspoken proponent of LGBT rights.
I've also called you (or similar anons) out on negatively stereotyping the poor, which you (or similar anons) still insist on doing.
>If that's what you've got out of the things I've said, seems more like a problem on your end.
It's the speaker's job to get the audience to understand the things he's trying to say. You don't get to foist the job of communication off onto the people you're speaking to.
>If it makes you feel any better, my preacher no longer acknowledges my existence because I'm such a staunch and outspoken proponent of LGBT rights.
Oh, gee, well that changes everything! Having gay friends means you're free of homophobia forever, and it's not at all callous to trot out those sorts of things as a get out of jail free card whenever anyone points out that the only people you ever tone police are the people fighting for further expansion of LGBT rights.
Newsflash, Slowpoke, but most of the Republican party would probably consider themselves advocates of LGBT rights. Including the ones who are saying that allowing gay people to get married is the worst thing that's ever happened to this country and the reason 9/11 happened. The same people who protested interracial marriages considered themselves highly racially progressive for thinking that allowing black people to go to school with white people was all right.
But when your actions are to constantly tone-police and concern troll the left, and defend the people on the right and speak out in support of MRA talking points, your affiliations are clear--and you've outright said that you lean toward GamerGate, which is the biggest right-wing institution in the gaming community.
>Slowpoke, you are right-wing
>actually, I'm left-wing, have some examples of the views I don't often show here
>OOOOH, I GUESS YOU THINK YOU'RE SO COOL FOR HAVING LEFT-WING VIEWS
fwiw, I've said before that I don't like circlejerking political views. I point out the problematic aspects of the views of people around me--my conservative Christian friends think I'm a radical liberal because whenever they talk about their views I argue against the issues inherent in traditionalist views.
You guys see me as some nutty conservative because I point out the issues I have with your movements.
Like I've said before, this is the issue with people who swear their allegiance to movements. Whenever someone disagrees with an aspect of it, they become The Enemy.
In fact, you may notice that the only time in these threads that I've interacted with someone who shared my views (someone naming aGG people), it has even been to correct them, not to stroke each other's dong about how right we are. That's just not how I do, sorry if it bruises your delicate ego to have someone call out the trashier aspects of your potentially otherwise-good views, lel
>I point out the problematic aspects of the views of people around me
You don't do a whole lot of that. Half of your shit comes off as being contrarian. And I don't see you as a nutty right wing, I see you as someone who takes the middle ground on every single issue as if it's somehow inherently superior to anything else...which isn't a way to go about things. As crazy as you may think it is, there is no reasonable middle ground on some issues. That is, as an Anon mentioned earlier, South Park-tier understanding of politics. Or the world for that matter. People that exist in the same political party aren't even entirely in lockstep, yet somehow you think that some random posters here are. It's also why people have been shitting on you as a poster for the better part of a year. You come into threads and try to find a golden mean when there isn't even one.
You also seem to think that anyone has sworn allegiance to any one group. This is silly because one's views can line up with a political standpoint of others without swearing to be part of the other group. This isn't even the first time you've thought this. You tried to make a group of "anti GG" and tried to make posters here as members of this "group"... which really doesn't describe me because I'm not taking up arms with any other person against GG. I just think Gamergators are massively retarded.
And calling +4 a circlejerk is stupid considering we have a right wing retard here, and I'm not even sure I entirely always agree with Mr. Stone or any of the other "liberal" Anons that post in here all the time. I at least know that Mr. Stone has disagreed with something I've posted on occasion.
This entire discussion string is about her dude, she's in UN trying to censor the internet.
Nice try changing the goalposts though.
Just answer me this: how long have you been following her twitter and other social media sites? How big is your folder of images with her face and things she's said in it? How many times have you masturbated to fantasies of "taking her down a peg?"
>she's in UN trying to censor the internet
This is from the Polygon article (hurr hurr >Polygon) on the UN report you’re bringing up:
>Public sensitization, safeguards and sanctions are the key terms used in the report when describing the approach to actually lowering incidents of gendered online violence. The group emphasizes the need to first change societal norms that mobilize harassment, followed by actively encouraging both the systems which enable attacks and the users who perpetuate them to promote safety and equality. This will come from increased education, both on- and offline, about the nature and repercussions of cyber violence.
>"The online social media sites and the places in which we are engaging really need to step up and change the way that their systems operate," Sarkeesian said during the panel discussion. "It's not enough that [social media sites] simply put band-aids on the problem areas. They need to completely reimagine what their systems look like in order to build sites that actively deter online harassment."
>This was echoed in a statement Sarkeesian gave to Polygon over email, regarding her participation in the discussion on combatting cyber violence. "We need to create an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation or violence," she told us.
>Finally, the group aims to develop laws and other governance to "enforce compliance and punitive consequences for perpetrators."
I see nothing in here that calls for “censorship of the Internet”. I see nothing that calls for the abridgement of First Amendment rights. If she’s trying to “censor the Internet”, she’s doing a very poor job of it.
If you weren't a pleb you could look at exif and determine that pic was made 30 seconds before post was posted. I don't need a huge folder of anita fuckups, I can just go to her twitter and find one in moments, because she has them nonstop. She is consistently insane, I'm sorry you've chosen to venerate an insane person.
Your fantasy seems to be that I'm some badly written movie sexist. Or "hobo". Or whatever else you like.
Why would I read Polygons interpretation of it if I have access to videos and can have my own interpretation after watching it?
>We need to create an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation
When you're intimidated by criticism... this is called a hugbox.
>When you're intimidated by criticism... this is called a hugbox.
And when you’re intimidated by death/rape threats, what’s that called?
No one who unironically uses the term "hugbox" is really worth taking seriously.
>And when you’re intimidated by death/rape threats, what’s that called?
I'm having a hard time understanding the mental logistics of that guy.
Ahmed officially a fucking con artist.
I know what logistics is, as I've worked in the field.
My use was informal, referring to how his flow of thoughts helped him reach the conclusion. I wasn't using it as a synonym for "logic" as you seem to think. If I was, why would I have put the word "mental" there?
Threatening to shoot up an auditorium where you're speaking isn't banter.
>Trolled because can't handle the bants
And if you’re getting death/rape threats from people every day as part of a campaign designed by people who hate your guts (and really do want to see you killed/raped) to make you feel unsafe and unwelcome—what’s that called, hmm?
You don’t get to write off the experiences of women who have undergone those sorts of campaigns as “they just got trolled”. If someone followed you around all day and told you to kill yourself or you deserved to be sexually assaulted—even after you’d done everything possible to block out their voice—you probably wouldn’t feel as if what they’re saying is a little ribbing. That you think of people being told they deserve to die/be raped as “banter” says a shitload about you, and none of it is good.
Look, I understand the impulse to say stupid shit like that. I’ve been on imageboards since damn near when 4chan was first a thing, so I know the effect imageboard culture can have on lowering inhibitions and making you say shit you’d probably never say in real life. (“Give a man a mask” and all that.) But you thinking that saying “I hope your ass gets raped by a big black dick, you psycho cunt bitch” to a woman is something that’s okay to do…repeatedly…without remorse…on every social media outlet she’s on…and for no reason other than she said things that don’t personally affect you…doesn’t make it something that’s okay to do.
(And before you go saying I’m trying to turn you into a scarecrow, keep in mind that you literally just referred to death/rape threats as “the bants” in the post I’m quoting. You don’t get to play the strawman card.)
Let me go back to that bit from Ms. Sarkeesian quoted in an earlier post:
>We need to create an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation
That doesn’t mean “WE NEED HUGBOXES TO PROTECT US FROM THE LOGIC AND THE CRITICISM” like you (and others like you) think it does. Intimidation, in this case, refers to those endless streams of death/rape threats and meaningless “criticisms” such as “you suck” and “you’re a liar” that push women off of social media and out of online communities simply because they’re women. She’s asking for people to not be assholes while online, and she’s asking for online services/communities to help make sure the assholes are filtered out. That isn’t censorship—it’s asking for online communities to help make the Internet a better place, especially for women.
I can see how that idea is frightening to you.
>No one who unironically uses the term "unironically" is really worth taking seriously.
It's adorable that you're trying, but you really need to work on your retorts. They need to at least make sense.
>They need to at least make sense.
No, it makes perfect sense. He's literally telling us that he isn't worth taking seriously.
Yo so I got a question. How do I learn about the various infrastructures that are in play right now? Because I can keep up with the news fine but it feels like one piece of seperate data after another and I often have little context to place those bits of data in. The infrastructures of all the top industries seem more important to me than knowing what's happening this week but I know very little about them.
Do I just have to resort to documentaries and then do fact checking?
Daily reminder Hillary started the Obama birth certificate nonsense and even posted his turban photo.
>as part of a campaign designed by people
You might want to prove that instead of just asserting it.
Also don't be disingenuous, the UN panel was specifically about criminalizing insults.
Threats are already illegal, the panel wasn't about that.
How about I post a link to a list of every presidential candidate who got enough attention to get mentioned on Wikipedia, in the form of a link to it's article on the 2016 election?
Check out those third parties, and remember that disregarding anyone as not getting enough attention is a practice in self-fufilling prophecy.
Why isn't the UN researching Britian's underground child porn rings? Priorities of libtards
>the UN panel was specifically about criminalizing insults
Show me the exact language from that panel where anyone says anything to that exact effect. Otherwise, please take your hobo hateboner for Ms. Sarkeesian out of my face.
Because that's not government policy, it's crimes being committed which are currently being investigated by the UK government. Why is it that conservatives aren't in favor of larger governments meddling in the affairs of smaller jurisdictions until it's time to try to draw attention away from their own wrongdoings?
What I see in that image is Ms. Sarkeesian noting how a day-to-day stream of insults—words and phrases that offer no demonstrable criticism of either a person’s behavior or speech—is as much harassment as death/rape threats, regardless of the legality of such speech. I don’t see her calling for the criminalization of insults. From what I’ve seen/heard about that panel, it didn’t specifically call for insults to be outlawed. Asking Internet services to help make the Internet a better place by weeding out abusive assholes is not the same thing as telling the UN to outlaw critical speech—and neither is asking the UN (or any government) to carefully consider and possibly (POSSIBLY) change existing definitions of harassment.
Now please take your hateboner for Ms. Sarkeesian out of my face.
Then it's also harassment when you call people "bigots" and "abusers" and shit like that.
You are intentionally ignoring the most important phrase in the lower half of that quote: “the day-to-day grind”. Insulting someone once does not count as harassment under any reasonable belief system. But insulting someone on a daily basis—exposing them to a constant stream of hatred and emotional abuse—could certainly rise to the level of harassment, especially if the person doing the insulting dedicates themselves to the task by creating tons of sockpuppet accounts on social media just so they’ll make sure their victim sees those insults.
Let me reiterate a hypothetical I posted earlier. If you had someone following you around on a daily basis who did little more than shout “you suck” into your ear, and they kept doing this even though you’ve done your best to ignore them and asked them to stop doing it, wouldn’t you feel as if that someone is harassing you?
And before you go “they can just leave social media if they don’t like it”, answer me this: why should women be forced into abandoning the Internet just to make assholes feel better?
That does happen daily to people.
And now we come to what the real issue has been all along here: homeboy is sad because people keep calling him out on being an abusive bigot.
How the fuck do you call something harassment and then do the same thing to other people? That's called being an asshole.
I think if persistantly following someone to insult them reaches a point of qualifying criminal harassment, it's better described as stalking. Not to say it isn't a problem, but from a strictly legal-linquistics perspective that sounds like the better way to persue the issue since it emphasises the lack of ability to escape from the ones stalking. That or, since it's about feeling powerless to go about one's lawful activities, intimidation.
The only issue I hold with creating " an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation" is the idea of the online world as a contiguous place when I see each online platform as it's own environment. Strictly speaking, there's already such an environment as long as there's at least one online media platform providing it. Buit this stance would actually help the case for prosecuting online stalkers when they follow someone between websites that are mostly unconnected beyond being places that victim frequents.
>if persistantly following someone to insult them reaches a point of qualifying criminal harassment, it's better described as stalking
Stalking is still a form of harassment. And there’s a bit of a difference between one person harassing another and a whole group of people harassing one particular target, which is why calling the latter a campaign of harassment seems more apropos.
Yeah, here’s the thing about the whole “just turn off the phone” premise: sooner or later, they’ll very likely need to turn it back on. My question in >>401037 already covered the next logical step (“they should just leave social media”). And then there’s the fact that even if they turn off the phone and leave social media, a fair number of the assholes who do this type of shit keep looking for ways to continue the harassment—which can mean targetting the friends and family of their original target. So while it’s fine to suggest that “turn off the phone” premise as a solution, it is ultimately anything but.
You don't have to literally turn it off. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
>And there’s a bit of a difference between one person harassing another and a whole group of people harassing one particular target
Are apparently not harassment and always get defended by SJWs because "I-it's just criticism"
Who is the one particular target those groups targeted again?
>Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Cool thought-terminating cliché, bro.
Turns out well-adjusted human beings actually need positive reinforcement from their peers for their mental well-being. That's part of why lonely shut-ins like you are such violent narcissists.
You just insulted me, but I think I'll live.
I don't think he was aiming to insult you there. Seemed like an accurate analysis.
I figured you would seeing as you were saying earlier that you don't see any harm in insults, which sounds like pretty clear consent on your part to being insulted as much as I feel like. Wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable by forcing you to live in a hugbox where people treat each other like fellow human beings.
>You can insult nobody , except the nerds.
"I can tolerate everyone, except the jews"
Sound like justification for bullying the socially weak.
Then politicians can claim harrassement over people who don't like them. Why Justin Bieber isn't whining in all media over teens insulting him already?
Would this be considered an example of harassment
It seems that way to me
Jerkwads butting into another person's business
The constant grind of hate and threats must get tiring after awhile
And what do you feel about doxing
oh hey, there goes that deluge of unrelated images
next time can you put them in one image for easier
It's more that there really don't seem to be enough people in my country that acknowledge there's a problem; mainstream media barely acknowledge this kind of shit.
1) There are already ongoing investigations into that shit
2) How the fuck does caring about human rights make me a "libtard"?
>What if someone pisses off a lot of people, and hundreds of thousands of people insult them once each?
That is an unfortunate firestorm of bullshittery. But that sort of outrage culture bullshit happens all the time on Twitter: dumbass posts something stupid, someone with a lot of followers RTs it, followers jump down the dumbass’s throat en masse, insults and such continue for a while, and the insulters eventually move on to the next outrage. I wouldn’t consider it harassment unless the dumbass is targetted by one of those outraged insulters for harassment well after that initial firestorm.
>that image and all those images above it
Yeah, uh…this is more akin to that “outrage firestorm” thing I was talking about above. Dumbass did a racist thing, got raked over the coals for it, then most likely got left alone after the outraged insulters “finished the job” (i.e. contacted the dumbass’s employer to let them know they had a racist on staff). I don’t necessarily agree with all of that shit—and I explicitly disapprove of doxing under any circumstances—but it’s not a part of society and Internet culture that I can change on my own. I can refuse to participate in an outrage backlash, I can break off contact with anyone who gets in on one, and I can denounce these backlashes with every breath I take…but I can’t outright stop others from participating.
And because most of what happens/what is said during these backlashes falls under the protections of legal speech, I cannot (and would not) ask for this sort of shit to be explicitly outlawed. (You were probably hoping I’d say the opposite. That sucks for you.)
>2) How the fuck does caring about human rights make me a "libtard"?
Gonna help you out here, Mini. There are a few idiots in this thread (quite possibly less) that are either a) massively retarded or b) trolling. You just found one of them.
Anita was calling to outlaw "outrage firestorms", presumably only when it targets her or her friends. You are dodging this.
>Anita was calling to outlaw "outrage firestorms"
If you have an exact quote for that with the proper sourcing, I’d love to see it so I can properly comment on it. If all you’re going to do is point to the image posted earlier in the thread again, I’ve covered that quote well enough already, so you’ll have to put in some actual effort this time.
>If all you’re going to do is point to the image posted earlier in the thread again, I’ve covered that quote well enough already, so you’ll have to put in some actual effort this time.
>That is an unfortunate firestorm of bullshittery
That is all that happens to Sarkesian though, she stokes that kind of outrage in order to get donations. She even posted a bunch of the worst ones and they were all inane shit.
They don't repeat and are all specifically responding when Sarkesian says something dumb (to the femfreq account). This isn't harassment, it's criticism.
>Shut the fuck up you feminazi! Why don't you just go in the corner and cry how people on the web gave you boo boos on the inside.
>You are setting the women's movement back with every word you say. Quit being an attention whore, no one made you a rep for women.
^^^^ REMINDER SHE THINKS THIS IS HARASSMENT! ^^^^
Watch him ignore this.
Also you "covered" the image posted by contradicting yourself in the selfsame post, this is why no one is listening to you. Just as an example, this post >>401033 first you said Sarkesian is trying to equate insults (legal criticism) to threats (illegal):
>day-to-day stream of insults
>are as much harassment as death/rape threats, regardless of the legality of such speech
Just an FYI, equating insults to threats would criminalize insults. Then you said:
>I don’t see her calling for the criminalization of insults.
What's the point of responding to you if you literally defeat your own arguments.
Watch him ignore this too.
>If you have an exact quote
Why don't you stop avoiding it and watch the fucking video:
1:22:35 Zoe Quinn
1:29:54 Anita Sarkeesian
He's not going to watch the vid.
>Why Justin Bieber isn't whining in all media over teens insulting him already?
Because Justin Bieber makes money through singing, he doesn't have to care what people think, and he's sane enough not to equate people venting with harassment. Whereas Anita Sarkesian makes money through claiming people are harassing her then conning people out of donations and muh grants.
>people harassing someone
>unrelated to expanding the definitions of harassment
>That is all that happens to Sarkesian though, she stokes that kind of outrage in order to get donations. She even posted a bunch of the worst ones and they were all inane shit.
Then it seems to me that you're playing right into her hand by being so obsessed with her.
The hilarious and delicious irony of it all is that the people who hated Anita gave her the most attention and got even more people to pay attention to her. All this misguided hate blew up right in their faces. And even after the, what's it been two years? After the two years, they STILL don't get it.
Also, her videos are really harmless and I can't imagine why they rustle so many jimmies. Scratch that--I CAN understand why they rustle jimmies. But it's the fact that they're so benign that makes it raise an eyebrow.
Yeah, that's a good point--I absolutely would've never heard of her if it weren't for people like >401085 basically doing her advertising for her.
>discussion about person
>"why are you talking about person are you obsessed?!!!?!?"
You realize the discussion is about her and another girl talking in front of the UN right? If you want to discuss something else, by all means, go ahead...
>her videos are really harmless
She attacks gamedevs, tries to make them look sexist (by being sexist herself), tries to push really dumb shit like "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity", "objectification", "rrrrrrape culture!", speaking for women (which pisses women off), strawmanning men (which pisses men off) etc.
It's not just the videos either, it's also her twitter page where every month or so she makes sure to make a retarded or hateful comment to piss people off until her next tweet.
>That is all that happens to Sarkesian though, she stokes that kind of outrage in order to get donations.
No, what Ms. Sarkeesian does is point out the disproportionate response to what she does as an example of how women other than her receive similar abuse (or worse) for doing far less than what her obsessed haters accuse her of doing. Maybe she does it for the attention, maybe not—I don’t know, nor do I care, as it doesn’t justify any of what she goes through. And the irony of it all is, if she’s doing it for attention, people like you give her exactly what she wants.
>This isn't harassment, it's criticism.
Let’s see…“You are a despicable whore”, “Kill yourself”, “Shut the fuck up bitch”, “I’ll be the guy that runs over you”, “I hope you get fucking raped”, “Attention whore fuck off”…and those are all from the first seven images in that link you posted. Wanna tell me how all of those count as actual criticism of her work? No, of course you don’t. You cherry-picked two of the “softest” comments from that whole stream of tweets to make it seem as if Ms. Sarkeesian’s mentions are filled with criticism that isn’t as insulting/threatening as many of the other the tweets in that post. You also act as if those types of messages are rare aberrations; maybe they are when taking all of her mentions into account, but the point of the post was to show a sample of the negativity that fills her mentions every day.
You said I’d ignore that part of your post, but you’re the one who ignored the death/rape threats and critique-lacking insults shown in Ms. Sarkeesian’s blog post. Why should I take you seriously when you ignore or sidestep the evidence in front of you just to make a point?
>equating insults to threats would criminalize insults
You know? On this point, you’re sorta right. My linguistics and writing skills being what they are, I may have unintentionally fucked myself up the ass on this point. Allow me a moment to clear this up.
Insults are not threats. Insults, in and of themselves, should not be criminalized. Someone who yells “you suck” at another person should not be sent to jail over it. ALL THAT SAID: if you’re repeatedly lobbing insults at someone on a daily basis and you’re doing whatever it takes to make sure your victim sees those insults and feels the full brunt of your attempt to psychologically break them down, you're harassing that someone, and that specific behavior is the problem.
>Why don't you stop avoiding it and watch the fucking video
I’ll put together a separate post on it later.
>Anita Sarkesian makes money through claiming people are harassing her then conning people out of donations and muh grants
It’s only a “con” if the harassment isn’t real. You linked to a blog post she made about that harassment, but you didn’t provide proof that any of the tweets in that blog post were faked, so I’d say she has more credibility on the matter than you. All you did was claim what she went through isn’t harassment, but that’s your opinion—and your opinion is not a substitute for her lived experience.
Really, the whole reason you have this gigantic hateboner for Ms. Sarkeesian (and you should probably get that checked out because I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to have one of those for more than four hours) is that her speech, her mode of expression, and her ideas are more relevant than yours. If she were just some “Tumblrina” with five people following her, she could easily be ignored, but she’s speaking at UN hearings and getting death threats at speaking engagements, which means the things she says about what women go through in society and how culture treats women have actual relevance. And no matter why you disagree with her, you’re ultimately pissed because people take her ideas seriously. But you helped make her relevant by mentioning her name, linking to her blog, talking about her ideas, and so on. What she says has no direct personal impact on your life, and yet you feel the need to promote her as if the opposite were true.
Stop making her relevant and she’ll stop being relevant. Even an idiot like me can understand that.
>She attacks gamedevs, tries to make them look sexist (by being sexist herself), tries to push really dumb shit like "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity", "objectification", "rrrrrrape culture!", speaking for women (which pisses women off), strawmanning men (which pisses men off) etc.
Hahaha. And here is a perfect example of how people who benefit from sexism, racism, etc. feel personally attacked when people try to raise other people up to the same level as them.
>tries to make them look sexist
She doesn't have to do anything to make gamers look sexist. If there was anything in the history of gamers that made them look sexist, it was their response to her videos.
Of course, you're just going to handwave all this and pretend like the rape/death threats didn't happen and that it was all a clever ruse on her behalf to remove monies from our wallets. Real talk, how old are you, my man? I've literally spoken with high school freshman who made more coherent arguments than you.
And as an aside, I love how "toxic masculinity" always triggers stupid people like you. Do you not realize that said term also refers to the dumb shit men put each other through? It's like you hear the word masculinity and think it's some sort of personal attack on you. Then again, if you're so defensive over it, maybe it does accurately describe you.
>Do you not realize that said term also refers to the dumb shit men put each other through?
Seriously. I'm a male feminist, and fighting against the awful shit that we men do to each other is a big part of what makes me take it so personally. Feminists are doing far more to fight for men's rights than MRAs ever have.
>Feminists are doing far more to fight for men's rights than MRAs ever have.
There is about one worthwhile issue I heard of MRAs tackling and that's custody in separation.
Most everything else I hear from MRAs is reactionary BS to anything involving women. I'd love to see dudes actually tackling things like mental health issues (stop fucking acting as if men are emotionless creatures), the fact that men are more likely to succeed in committing suicide, gay rights, and breaking down the stereotypes of what it means to be a man.
Hoping this shit changes within the next generation or two. I've been trying my part by trying to get people to open up and talk about emotions, as well as defending those who don't fit the stereotypical mold of a man, but it's going to take a bit more than that. I hope if any MRA here is reading this, you will do some soul searching and think about where to focus your efforts. Because I assure you that having the emotional maturity of a 12 year old will do more damage to a man than a feminist boogeyman will.
Okay, so, I watched the pertinent parts of the video…and I’m not hearing anything in there from Ms. Quinn or Ms. Sarkeesian that promotes governmental censorship of any kind.
I took these notes from Ms. Quinn’s speech:
>when it comes to harassment, a humane response from tech partners is effective, but such response is currently lacking
>that kind of response requires proper moderation (which takes things like intersectional feminism into account, e.g. "dead naming" of trans women and domestic violence going viral online), well-trained responders (in both tech companies and law enforcement), and supportive social networks that don't tell people to "just get offline and hide" (which often doesn't work and can displace people from their only existing support network)
>preventative measures can include education and training about doxxing, SWATting, and general digital security
>services need effective TOS agreements that take into account how people from varying backgrounds (including marginalized groups of people) experience harassment
>services also need people who represent those backgrounds working for the related departments in those companies so the people already in tech don't decide what happens to everyone else
>legislation that "talks to people like [Ms. Quinn]" without destroying vital things like anonymity
>making sure people who live and work online and understand all the nuances of this subject (i.e. tech-literate people) are working on every step of this is crucial so things don't go in a wrong direction
>services should enforce their TOS and shut down bad actors
And here are my notes on Ms. Sarkeesian’s brief speech:
>the aforementioned “day-to-day grind” quote
>sexism and misogyny didn’t start with the Internet; the Internet is merely providing new ways for sexists and misogynists to do what they’ve already been doing
>it’s a cultural issue, and we can learn how to combat it from activists who’ve already been working to improve things (and are continuing to do so)
>cultural change—which is ultimately a systemic change—requires a lot of different approaches
>one such approach is for social media sites to change how their systems work so they can actively deter online harassment; we can’t convince every bad actor to straighten out their act, but we can create systems that make it harder for them to harass people
>the existing systems don't offer women protection, so they essentially punish women for being harassed
>the aforementioned “creating an online environment where everyone can participate without fear of intimidation or violence” quote
I only heard two references to legislation in both their speeches: Ms. Quinn’s explicit mention of “legislation”, and Ms. Sarkeesian’s vague reference to “laws” as one of the things we need to consider when trying to make that aformentioned cultural change. (If I missed a mention, forgive me; my attention span and short-term memory ain’t what they used to be.) Neither of them suggested or recommended any form of government censorship, nor did they ask any tech service to do anything that would be illegal under current First Amendment law. Every one of their suggestions and ideas sounded reasonable to me.
If you want to convince me that these two women are out to destroy the Internet and bury the First Amendment next to Jimmy Hoffa, you’ll have to try harder.
>There is about one worthwhile issue I heard of MRAs tackling and that's custody in separation.
Thing is, Feminists fight for that too. Feminism doesn't like the idea that women should be automatically assumed to be the better parent because it's typecasting women into the gender role of caretaker, and escaping that was one of the biggest parts of feminism. So even if the MRAs are right on that, it's not like they're right on an issue feminism is wrong on--they're just a blind hog that found an acorn.
Man, Stone, I gotta ask why you consistently refer to Sarkeesian and Quinn (and seemingly those two people exclusively) as "Ms."
It's a little bit creepy. Not going for an ad hominem or anything, just seems like it's a hop skip and jump away from a "m'lady."
I’d feel weird consistently referring to them by their first names alone, and it’s too wordy to keep referring to them with their full names; this is a reasonable compromise. I’d generally do the same for men. It’s not a hard and fast rule for anyone of any gender, though.
Maybe just going by last name, no Ms. / Mr. That's what newspapers and stuff do.
>If you can't prove an elaborate conspiracy theory then too bad even though they say they want censorship
Pertinent to the free speech discussion going on: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150928/13481932386/zuckerberg-tells-angela-merkel-facebook-is-hate-speech-censorship-case.shtml
>[O]n matters of comments that involve threats or calls to violence, we already have laws on the books […] to deal with that. Indeed, rather than disappearing the comments from social media, law enforcement would likely want to have those comments on hand should a crime for incitement or menacing have been committed. For charges of racism and hate speech, on the other hand, I would argue that the need for exposure of the bigot outweighs any, if there is any, harm done by the speech. Put another way: if there are racist assbags in the world, do you want to allow them to identify themselves, or shall we allow social media sites to put up a veil so that we can all pretend that everything is right with the world?
This is why I’m more of a mind to give racist/sexist douchefucks all the metaphorical rope they need to hang themselves with: the more we have that speech out in the open, the better we can confront, counter, and ultimately refute it. That said: if someone doesn’t want to read it and it pops up on their social media feeds or whatever, they should have access to tools/settings that helps them filter it out of their specific feeds. It’s about a tricky balance between protecting the principles of free speech and allowing users to personally block speech they find offensive—which is why we need better systems in place on social media sites. (Twitter won't let you block hashtags if you're using the actual site…at least on the desktop, anyway.)
>If you can't prove an elaborate conspiracy theory then too bad even though they say they want censorship
Yes, yes, I’m sure someone believes Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are working in tandem with Mark Zuckerberg, whoever the hell runs Twitter and Google, and the New World Order to silence everyone who isn’t a libtard feminist that bows down before all women.
What sucks for them is, I don’t have to take them seriously.
Hahahh here's a good example of how someone who thinks men are toxic believes they aren't sexist for thinking that.
>She doesn't have to do anything to make gamers look sexist
Game dev you illiterate idiot. She specifically did shit in the game which is penalized (ie you lose points/fail the level) like shooting hookers or strippers, and then claimed this made the game sexist.
>equating insults to threats would criminalize insults.
They want to expand the definition of harassment, WHICH IS LEGALLY ACTIONABLE, to include people calling them liars (how did you miss that part?) and insulting them.
>Feminists fight for that too.
No they don't. The very feminist we're talking about is pushing for the idea of toxic masculinity, they literally think men are evil.
8:25, watch this government funded feminist, a literal systemic sexist:
>Yes, yes, I’m sure someone believes Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are working in tandem with Mark Zuckerberg, whoever the hell runs Twitter and Google, and the New World Order
You posted this in the same post where Zuckerberg and those you mentioned are taking action due to the UN panel where Anita and Zoe pushed their agenda. Unbelievable the blinders you've got on mate.
>This is why I’m more of a mind
Another thing I don't get, you fundamentally disagree with Anita and Zoe. You're fine with day to day insults, you're even fine with outrage mobs doxxing people and getting them fired.... so IDK either stop pretending their views match yours (they don't), or change your views to match theirs.
You aren't consistent in single posts, much less your entire view. Consistency is key here or there's no point talking to you.
>here's a good example of how someone who thinks men are toxic believes they aren't sexist for thinking that.
I don't believe men are inherently toxic, though.
You have to make sure you're on the same wavelength before you try arguing with someone. Because you just developed a strawman.
And I forgot to mention that guys aren't the only ones who feed into toxic masculinity. Women do it, too. Any mother that tells her son not to cry because he's a boy. Any woman that doesn't treat woman-on-man domestic abuse with seriousness. The list goes on.
I'm sure you're going to continue ignoring all these points made so you can go back to jerking off about how much you hate Anita, tho.
>They want to expand the definition of harassment, WHICH IS LEGALLY ACTIONABLE, to include people calling them liars (how did you miss that part?) and insulting them.
No, what they want is to expand the definition of harassment to include the sort of “day-to-day grind” that involves receiving those insults—and worse—on a daily basis. And they’re free to hold that opinion all they want, too. That doesn’t mean it’ll happen, nor does it mean the United Nations is going to fucking come in and burn the US Constitution to placate feminists. (For starters, the UN is way too fucking inefficient to take over the US and destroy its rule of law.) Again, this comes down to the issue of relevance: if you don’t want people to take seriously the ideas of Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, you should stop taking them so seriously first.
>You posted this in the same post where Zuckerberg and those you mentioned are taking action due to the UN panel where Anita and Zoe pushed their agenda.
That is factually wrong, though. The original article that Techdirt discussed contains this link:
Zuckerberg discussed Facebook fighting hate speech with Chancellor Merkel at that event, not at the panel where Sarkeesian and Quinn spoke. As far as I know (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), Chancellor Merkel was neither at that panel nor helped craft the report produced by/for that panel in any meaningful way. Zuckerberg’s discussion with Chancellor Merkel had more to do with long-time criticisms of Facebook from the German government than in the cultural criticism of Sarkeesian and Quinn.
>Techdirt link on the UN cyberviolence report
I’ve given it a cursory skim, and I happen to agree with the larger criticisms levelled at the UN (and its Broadband Commission in particular). But that Techdirt article doesn’t mention any one individual contributor to the report—it mentions how the overall report is a danger to free speech and how existing laws in several countries handle the punishment of behavior those laws already criminalize. Sarkeesian and Quinn are not the report’s lone contributors, and I haven’t seen you criticizing any of the report’s other contributors or any of the other women at that panel like you’ve criticized Quinn and especially Sarkeesian. So maybe start aiming some venom in the direction of the UN Broadband Commission instead of spewing it all in the direction of Sarkeesian and Quinn.
>you fundamentally disagree with Anita and Zoe. You're fine with day to day insults, you're even fine with outrage mobs doxxing people and getting them fired.... so IDK either stop pretending their views match yours (they don't), or change your views to match theirs.
You’ve conflated several positions of mine with each other and confused yourself in the process, so I’ll try to clear this up as best I can.
Insults in general should be legal. Outrage firestorms, while morally reprehensible in the grand scheme of things, contain multiple free speech issues that can’t be addressed with a single broadly-worded law (sledgehammer vs scalpel and all that). Harassment campaigns are a form of behavior that current laws are woefully unable to address in any meaningful capacity. We deserve better systems from our Tech Gods in Silicon Valley—systems that can help mitigate harassment without destroying the First Amendment.
Does that help clear things up, or did I fuck things up even worse? I am a bit of an imbecile, so I’d like to know if this helped.
Not to mention any woman raised with the idea that men should do everything for them and then complain about inequality.
>No, what they want is to expand the definition of harassment to include the sort of “day-to-day grind” that involves receiving those insults—and worse—on a daily basis. And they’re free to hold that opinion all they want, too. That doesn’t mean it’ll happen, nor does it mean the United Nations is going to fucking come in and burn the US Constitution to placate feminists. (For starters, the UN is way too fucking inefficient to take over the US and destroy its rule of law.) Again, this comes down to the issue of relevance: if you don’t want people to take seriously the ideas of Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, you should stop taking them so seriously first.
Hitler is free to want to murder 6,000,000 jews, it doesn't mean it'll ever happen. Stop taking him so seriously.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now I’m free to ignore you. Thanks!
>I don't believe men are inherently toxic, though.
That's directed at Sarkesian idiot, why do SJWs always thing everything is about them? Although you're obviously a douchebag for trying to push that kind of narrative. That last one's for you.
>No, what they want is to expand the definition of harassment to include the sort of “day-to-day grind” that involves receiving those insults
That's literally what the quote above that sentence says. Why did you start off with "no"? Am I the only one seeing this?
>You’ve conflated several positions of mine
Yeah that's kind of how one discovers inconsistencies in your position. I'm sorry my opinions are internally consistent, I can't keep more than one belief stream going, not that practiced at doublethink (or schizophrenic).
>Insults in general should be legal.
You disagree with Anita and Zoe then, thanks for confirming.
1:30:33 - she thinks people saying "youre a liar" is harassment (a criminal offense)
>That's directed at Sarkesian idiot
Then maybe you should’ve mentioned her name instead of pointing to those two posts and saying “here's a good example of how someone who thinks men are toxic believes they aren't sexist for thinking that”. You want to complain about my linguistics, but you’re making fundamental mistakes of your own.
>That's literally what the quote above that sentence says.
>1:30:33 - she thinks people saying "youre a liar" is harassment
Anita’s quote about harassment doesn’t say insults in and of themselves are harassment; you’re removing the “day-to-day grind” quote—and the context it creates—that comes immediately before she brings up the (generic and low-key) insults of “you suck” and “you’re a liar”. Don’t pull that level of rhetorical bullshit out and expect me not to tear it to shreds; I’m an imbecile, but I’m not brain dead.
>You disagree with Anita and Zoe then
If you could link me to a direct and explicit quote from either Sarkeesian or Quinn that proves they want insults to be criminalized (and I don’t mean the same image from earlier in the thread that you’ll probably link to anyway), you might have a point. But I have neither seen nor heard any such quote from either woman, and the closest you’ve come to one is that aformentioned image. If you’re going to stroke your hateboner for these women, at least put in some effort.
Stone already said he's not paying attention to you anymore. And I'm just responding to you now to see you sperg out again. It's good for a laff.
I’m a disappointment. Get used to it.
The point is just because someone is "irrelevant" doesn't mean it's not OK to criticize them for things they say. These people talked to both Congress and the UN trying to promote censorship. That makes them way more relevant than some dude who makes videogames which is all they bitch about.
Reminder the UK is a fucked up country. They arrest people for lolis, yet jew politicians and sandniggers are allowed to rape children with impunity and the government covers it up.
>hurr only /pol/ likes loli and hates child raping scum
Ahmed Mohamed was handcuffed and escorted out of the school in Irving, Texas, after teachers said his clock looked like a bomb
But Irving mayor Beth Van Duyne claims the 14-year-old was detained because he failed to comply with police officers' orders
She added: 'In my own conversations with the police is that he was not forthcoming with information'
Texas Municipal Patrolman's Association president Heath Wester said he believed Ahmed took the device into school as a 'publicity stunt'
There are also claims that Ahmed's family are refusing to release the police report of the incident
CNN ain't all that great either. No place that employs Don Lemon is, really.
Either you have some impossibly strict standards due to being a mathematician, or you're rejecting sources out of hand that put forward a narrative you don't agree with.
More sites are describing the UN report as a censorship plan.
Gonna skim the Popehat link, if only because I like that blog.
>Any Report From Any UN Body About Speech Warrants Scrutiny
NO FUCKING SHIT.
>It invokes Censorship Trope Five: balancing speech and other rights. Other countries take an occasionally ad-hoc "balancing" approach to speech — that in any particular circumstance whether speech is protected depends on whether the right to speak is outweighed by some other interest. The American approach recognizes categories of unprotected speech (like true threats) but forbids the government from "balancing" speech outside those categories. So: unsurprisingly, the Commission is taking an international approach to speech rather than the American one I support.
Which is pretty much my major concern with this whole thing. If a certain kind of speech isn’t illegal in the US, the UN shouldn’t be pushing us to make it illegal. (Note that I said “speech”. Harassment is behavior. Saying “you suck” isn’t harassment; saying “you suck” over and over to the same person on a daily basis through every conceivable outlet possible is harassment…or at least looks a hell of a lot like harassment.)
>rhetorically, the report advocates a "zero tolerance for violence against women" mantra. I understand and share the anti-violence sentiment, but experience teaches that framing a response to a problem as "zero tolerance" leads to terrible results. That's not a problem with "women's issues," it's a problem with any perceived social ill. Telling people to take a "zero tolerance" approach effectively tells them to suspend critical judgment when addressing a problem. It doesn't lead to treating a problem seriously; it leads to treating a problem anxiously. When applied to something as complicated as the internet, that's potentially disastrous.
Excellent point. (This also applies to “zero tolerance” policies in schools, which are the reason why we end up with kids suspended for making finger-guns and going “pew pew pew”.)
>More alarmingly, the report seems to advocate government regulations requiring online platforms to take particular approaches to harassment prevention. The devil there could be in the details: regulations could easily amount to content-based censorship.
Another excellent point. Hell, the comics industry created the Comics Code because of the fear of government-backed content regulation. We don’t even really get AO-rated games because of the ESRB, which was also created due to the fear of Censorship Bureaus.
>Anti-harassment protocols will always be used disingenuously. That doesn't mean industry shouldn't try; it means there should be more critical thinking about whether they will help or hurt.
>in reviewing various responses to online harassment, the report is insufficiently focused on the distinction between plausible laws and implausible laws, noting them both approvingly. But all laws are not alike. For instance, the report approvingly cites "revenge porn" laws. But some such laws are so badly drafted that their drafters have conceded defeat. In citing authorities, the report does not attempt to distinguish between advocates of revenge porn laws who attempt to frame laws that will pass constitutional muster and advocates who are effectively seeking to change legal and constitutional norms to accommodate their revenge porn laws. The distinction is meaningful, and the report's uncritical approach to content-based censorship proposals concerns me. Even when it appears to be rhetorical rather than substantive (like the introduction's puzzling reference to "blasphemous libel" as a form of violence against women), it's a danger sign.
Judging by Popehat’s post, the report is basically coming off as a series of recommendations that might possibly influence lawmakers and tech companies in the US. Nothing in here is saying “the UN is gonna come take your free speech away” or whatever. (The UN's too inefficient to do that, anyway.) It is, as Popehat puts it, “a thoughtful approach to a serious problem” that warrants “careful examination of any resulting policies”—and I don’t see how that’s an issue, since that’s what any such law, regulation, or policy deserves.
>Another excellent point. Hell, the comics industry created the Comics Code because of the fear of government-backed content regulation. We don’t even really get AO-rated games because of the ESRB, which was also created due to the fear of Censorship Bureaus.
Why are you completely brushing over this? Content-based censorship is BAD.
Yes, it is. Thank you for reiterating a position with which I agree.
Fuck this bullshit is bringing me back to Isla Vista, Huge internet nerd blows people away.
Is he right?
>'Kind, funny and bright' student, 17, hanged himself after being falsely accused of rape
>Is he right?
Somewhat. Yes, society is failing men/boys in certain ways, but we’re not going to fix it by going back to acting as if being “ultra-macho” is a good thing.
Because "virgin loser beta males" are macho, right? Feminists just hate men.
Yeah, actually, they are. Despite their inferiority complex, nerds approach machismo from the position of the "philosopher king" instead of the bodybuilder, but they still very much buy into the same hierarchical paternalism, and the fact that they even subscribe to the idea of alphas and betas is proof of that.
When you drive, do you stay in the correct lane, or do you swerve all over the place, do u-turns, stop abruptly, and sometimes go in reverse?
how awful of that guy to use words in his post
and tbh, your "le trash man meme" is fitting because it's exactly where your post belongs
If I'm driving in the oncoming lane I try to stop the the shoulder before I cause an accident.
Considering feminism has driven a wedge between sexes and is ruining lives for both men and women, maybe it's time to re-evaluate the direction feminism is going in.
Never understood why feminists are such assholes to loners tbh, but it's somehow "empowering" to sleep with chad thundercock womenbeaters... smh
>tfw feels are terrorism
>Considering feminism has driven a wedge between sexes
Yes because before feminism, everything was hunky dory between men and women
You probably think race relations between blacks and whites were fine until that pesky civil rights movement came along, too
Yes, we should always re-evaluate ideals and principles, especially in regards to political/social movements. But rethinking feminism does not require the destruction of feminism—especially if the only reason for that destruction is to “save” some outdated idea of what being a “real man” means.
Not even sure what this "real man" shit has to do with women. A lot of "real man" shit doesn't even involve women, but for whatever reason those pesky feminists are to blame here.
>A lot of "real man" shit doesn't even involve women
No, but it involves how we raise boys and how we teach them what being a “real man” is about (e.g “real men don’t cry”, “real men don’t talk about feelings”). How boys/men treat other boys/men is another aspect of this (e.g. calling men “virgin beta male losers” because they’re not pussyhounds or whatever). That sort of shit needs rethinking, too.
And addressing those problems is one of the cornerstones of modern feminism.
Yep, that's what I meant. Men generally are doing more damage to other men, more than any woman does. Most of the time, it's men riding each others' asses about these things.
>feminism will make women happier by convincing them they're oppressed!
>study after study shows female happiness declining
>it's a paradox!
>how is this happening!?!?!?1
Maybe because feminists are trying to dictate every aspect of manhood. And every feminist is a CRASS sexist.
Imagine if MRAs made a list of what every woman should be like, and the first thing on the list is "a wife should know how to make her husband the type of sandwich he likes, without asking his mom about it".
>Maybe because feminists are trying to dictate every aspect of manhood. And every feminist is a CRASS sexist.
Don't forget how they're using witchcraft to steal your penis.
Studies on babies and related animals show men are not "culturally conditioned" to be less social, less emotional or more ambitious, it's a biological difference.
Maybe if modern feminism wants to be taken seriously it should stop ignoring scientific proof that what they're doing is wrong.
Until then only 14-20% of the population will identify as feminist, while the remainder recognizes it for the female supremacy movement it is.
>Studies on babies and related animals show men are not "culturally conditioned" to be less social, less emotional or more ambitious, it's a biological difference.
That's a statistical difference, there's deviation from it just are there are short men and tall women. But reliance on cold reading leads to people treating predicability as more important than personal inclination.
Allowing such idiocy leads to everyone being forced toward an average based on demograpics in the name of justice, while taking senstivity as obeideince to perscriibed ethics desgined to prevent such idiocy rather than one's own senses leads to everyone being forced toward an average meant to change demographics in the name of justice.
Pressganging others into joining a group with some arbitrary code of conduct just to simplify management with no repect for the cost to those joining does not appeal to me wether it is justified by appeal to nature or demands for equality. The demand to conform to a pattern of behavior is sensibly enforced only when it can be shown that dire consequences would result otherwise, not mere inconveniences like not being as proud of each other as we could be.
We are also naturally inclined toward living in trees on the veldt with no air conditioner. Talking about what's "natural" is idiotic when the discussion should be more about what's best than what we would do if all accountability and morality were stripped away in favor of raw atavistic hedonism.
Why do feminists deliberately misinterpret "feminists are assholes" criticisms as some crazy conspiracy shit.
Because of people saying shit like “feminists are trying to control every aspect of manhood”.
>“Overall, I'm disappointed in it,” Quinn said to me in an email about the report. “It's an important subject that deserves to be addressed but how it's addressed matters just as much, if not more. Unfortunately, it feels like the issues with the report might have ultimately kneecapped an otherwise potentially useful resource.”
OH LOOK. EVEN SHE THINKS THE REPORT ISN'T ALL THAT GREAT.
It's probably just the lizard people in disguise.
>The report says on page 48: There is widespread representation of VAWG [violence against women and girls] in mainstream culture, including in contemporary and popular music, movies, the gaming industry and the general portrayal of women in popular media. Recent research on how violent video games are turning children, mostly boys, into ‘killing zombies’ are also a part of mainstreaming violence. [emphasis added]
>As White and others have pointed out, the quoted phrase “killing zombies” is sourced from this extremely questionable article from 2000 that links school shootings to video games. It refers to spree killers like the Columbine shooters as “Nintendo killers,” predicting a scourge of violence brought on by video games. At a later point, the article calls Pokémon a “killing game designed for toddlers beginning at 2 and 3 years old.”
Lol we told you that you sound like those people.