That applies nicely to the court system and the state. It's less applicable in tech forums home to a wide variety of people from varying nations and jurisdictions.
We're allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Based on available information, I think these accusations have merit.
I'd really like to see some numbers on how his (Bezos) wealth breaks down, so I'd prefer more than your word on the matter. Beyond that, much of what he owns isn't just land, but is also real estate (homes, apartments, offices, the like) as is shown in the first posted article.
While we're at it, it's interesting to note that much of what has Trump's name on it isn't actually something he owns. He's a big fan of licensing his name and having no other involvement beyond that, which gives the illusion that he owns more than he actually does. This article in particular has some interesting things to note- particularly the latest assessment by Forbes of Trump's net worth. Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings. Doubly so when in the same article, Trump says his brand is worth 4 billion. So, no, according to Trump himself and the other sources available, most of his wealth does not come from real estate, local businesses or casinos. It comes from his brand and licensing.
I also find the idea of only land and real estate holders having the ability to vote quite disturbing. I'm at a point in my life where I'm able to put time and effort into researching candidates and politics, but I don't have the money necessary to own real estate. I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about. Since people who rent also don't own real estate, we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white, doesn't deserve a say in who represents them, even if they vastly outnumber the people who would be left with the vote.
The funny thing is that your point is essentially irrelevant. This isn't even about Reddit as an entity blocking anyone/anything, it's about users choosing to block people for whatever the reason might be.
Can this be used for people to ignore opposition and differing opinions? Yes- but by that token, so can "just not reading the post." Don't need a block feature built in for that. However, "not reading the post" isn't so useful when someone starts following and harassing you online. That's where the block feature starts to really shine.
In the hands of the users, the way the block tool will be used will be a reflection of Reddit's community, rather than the company of Reddit itself. A prime example of this is the upvote/downvote system. It can indeed be used as a method of saying what posts contribute to discussion and what do not- but many times it ends up being used as a "agree/disagree" button that ends up silencing anyone sufficiently with an opinion that is sufficiently unpopular. Sometimes this happens to trolls and bigots... other times to people who call out that same bigotry.
People love to complain about how Reddit is no longer an open platform for free speech... but with systems like that? It never was, despite what Reddit itself claimed.
How are we defining "real word" here? Typically I see people suggest that it need to be in "the dictionary", and by that definition cisgender/cisgendered certainly qualifies (given its inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
It's also rude to block the network access of everyone in the subway car just because a few people are talking. Phones are used for so much more than talking to people these days.
Actually I shouldn't say rude- it's illegal.
Reading further down in that twitter post actually details why those tweets needed to be deleted. What Sushi was doing is called Sea-Lioning and is considered as Spam under Twitter's rules.
As I was reading through your post, I had a lot to say... but then I came upon this little nugget here.
Mashiki cut off her quote to just "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" to summarize her idea. You disagree, but instead of showing a different idea, you just talk about a different approach (that is, seeing all that sexism as systems, individual vs societal levels). That's not a new idea. That's a new approach to promote her idea that there's sexism in our society.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you really suggesting there's not sexism in our society? That people do not suffer discrimination based on their sex/gender? That's the only way I can think of her promoting the idea that there's sexism in our society is a bad thing. If you think it's a lie, then of course you're going to think what she's doing is evil.
And if you really DO think that's a lie, then I'm concerned for the people around you. Are there no women in your life? Have you never spoken to one who's had to deal with men in the workplace? Have you never watched a commercial trying to use breasts to sell hamburgers/cars/web hosting? (Seriously, GoDaddy alone is a prime example...) We live in a world where you can get erectile dysfunction medicine for free on your health plan, but you have to pay an additional tax just to get pads or tampons for your period. Wait... Roosh, is that you?
We shall now return to our regularly scheduled post. (But seriously, holy shit, dude. What the fuck?)
You can't help? No, there are plenty of ways you can help. It's called understanding what an analogy is and isn't. It's called getting a sense of humor. There are plenty of ways you can do to help yourself be more capable of understanding what other people meant in their words.
My Star Wars analogy was to show that changing approaches is orthogonal to changing underlying ideas and beliefs. You spent the rest of your post talking about a bunch of other things you THINK my analogy meant to show, when I never meant any of those things. This is extra funny and sad because this sub-discussion is over what Anita meant, and here you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what I meant.
Oh, I know you were making an analogy- the problem is, it's a pretty fukken shit analogy. No one compares someone to Hitler because that person's art is bad. The people/things/objects you choose to make an analogy with have meaning beyond what you intended. As for the lack of a sense of humor, it's not my fault your joke sucks. It did give me a good opportunity to practice my Vader impression though when reading your post to my coworkers... that was good for a laugh, so thanks, I think.
Indeed, which is why my analogy was not meant to make that comparison. As I said above, whatever you think I meant by my analogy is fiction in your head.
Again, not my fault your analogy sucks. Just for your future reference, here's what analogy means:
analogy
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Choose your analogies carefully, and be mindful of who you make comparisons to. I'm actually a little surprised you didn't jump right to Hitler, but hey, at least Vader was redeemable.
Well, the only one using that example is you.
Eh, so it's not an "example". Poor word choice on my part, but largely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. I won't begrudge you for nitpicking, I've got so many other things to begrudge you over.
...? Are you serious? There's not a damn thing to support your statement in the link you provided, just several statements she made regarding the shit she and other women have had to deal with. And she's right about all of it, too.
It's bullshit to be labeled a "professional victim" just because you're willing to talk about the abuse you've had to put up with.
Assuming she doesn't play games because she's a woman is pretty sexist- and before you bring up the 2010 quote, she references gaming earlier in her life (unless you think playing NES games doesn't count.) Honestly I wouldn't call MYSELF a gamer either... not if it means being associated with people like you.
The games press is in no way obligated to allow people to post whatever shit they want (harassment, abuse, etc). There's a private business and should probably take down things like rape threats and well, anything that violates their ToS if they're so inclined. She's not saying "if you disagree with me about gaemz, you should be silenced!" She's saying "Women shouldn't have to put up with violence/abuse when they're just trying to talk about games."
She's also right about the Bayonetta reviews- not a whole lot said about the sexism of the games. There's an interesting aspect/dynamic to it regarding female sexual empowerment, but given that Nintendo worked with playboy for professional Bayonetta cosplay, you can't tell me THAT was about making female gamers feel good about themselves.
And hey, in the last quote she's not even talking about games! Just about how many mass shootings in the US are committed by men, especially men who feel royally butthurt over not getting laid. I kinda wished she'd mentioned the entitlement so many men feel, but that's for another discussion entirely.
If you really want to prove what you're saying, you're going to need to provide waaaaay more evidence. When her job is being an activist and pointing shit like this out, you're going to see her POINTING SHIT OUT. That doesn't mean she's pointing it all out- all the time, constantly. That doesn't mean she thinks literally every game is sexist, or that each individual man is evil.
Though with the constant harassment/threats she receives, I'm not even sure I'd blame her at this point. How dare she be a woman who talks about our precious vidja gaemz in a negative light!
So what? So she changed her approach. She isn't changing her underlying ideas and beliefs.
Darth Vader:
First off, I can't help but think someone who was bent on controlling the Galaxy isn't really an apt comparison to someone who wants better representation in video games, but that's as relevant to the conversation as, well, the rest of your post, I guess. (Which is to say, not at all.)
I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everybody's faith is lacking, everybody's power is insignificant next to the power of the Force, and I've got to point it all out in the form of choking people to death.
Informing people that there are systems of oppression/sexism/racism/homophobia/take your pick isn't QUITE the same as murder. I know you're just using this as an example, but it's rare I see an equivalence that's quite THIS false.
And then you settle into it, you start to understand these people have been living within these systems of Imperial Rule, with the Stormtrooper Academy for Marksmanship. So now I pick and choose my battles. I only choke people HALF to death. And I just cut off my son's hand and offer him to overthrow the Emperor with me. A new approach!
Ignoring again how irrelevant your example is (in that there's a big difference between pointing out problems in our society and outright MURDER), you're once more willfully ignoring the context in which this statement was made- which is to say, the difference between sexism on an individual level, and on a societal (systematic) level. She is not saying "That black pen on the desk is homophobic!", she's not saying "Eating chinese food is racist!", and she's not saying "AC's Slave Leia body pillow is sexist!"
...Actually, she might be saying that last one, but hey AC, what you do to your love pillows is none of my business.
You: But look, Vader is saying his old approach is not ACTUALLY useful way to approach issues!
Her old approach is largely irrelevant to how she is now, and there's only a problem if you think her underlying ideas and beliefs are a problem. So far, you haven't actually shown me that you UNDERSTAND her ideas and beliefs. Hell, you haven't even shown me you understand basic sociology. All I got from your comment is that you're a fan of Star Wars.
Yeah, Mashiki's right. You are ignorant.
I'd be hurt... if I had any real care for what you thought of me. In a world where I require your opinion for personal validation, I'd be devastated!
You can call me names and insult me if you'd like- but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Feel free to go look up the entire context of that, I'll await as you prove yourself to be as ignorant as your comment is.
Done. As it turns out, AmiMojo is completely right in that she's saying the opposite of what the clip you posted suggests. The quote below comes from the point of the panel referenced in the youtube clip, in which she discusses her initially learning about feminism, and then growing from that starting point into trying to do actual good.
"I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everything is sexist, everything is racist, and everything is homophobic, and you have to point all out, to everyone, all the time. So there's a good year of my life where I was just the most obnoxious person to be around.
And then you settle into it, you start to understand that people have been living within these systems, and it was just sort of a liberating moment for me, and you learn how to pick and choose your battles, and that sort of thing, but, I think that's the critical piece here that we have to understand this as systems. And I really like what you're saying, because that's fundamentally challenging power dynamics. We don't want equality within these oppressive systems, we want to create actual real equity. "
She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues (and how awful she was when she was acting like that.) She makes it very clear that she doesn't approve of the approach you're ascribing to her. Specifically this is in reference to another part of the discussion, in which she's talking about the differences between sexism/oppression and individual choice versus those same things as a system (so, sociology.) The only way to come to the conclusion you've chosen is to either only watch the 6 second clip, or to willfully misinterpret her words in order to reinforce your predetermined conclusion of her/her cause/feminism/what have you.
By all means, organize something. Shit, I'd probably even support you in doing so. Other minorities/ethnic groups aren't really obligated to protest/raise awareness for YOUR issue, but I'm actually pretty sure you'd see a lot of support from them, as St. Patrick's day IS pretty offensive towards Irish folk in a lot of ways.
And then of course you'd get all the people calling you a lunatic SJW for daring to make them question their actions/behaviors.
"STRAW MAN. 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."
Funny, because no one in this comment line has made the argument that false reports don't happen/aren't important. That would make the position suggested imaginary and easily confuted, because we ourselves would argue against those not mattering. As a result, it fits the definition so perfectly that were it any more obvious, it would be used to scare crows.
I gave your suggestion a shot, and as it turns out the only nonsensical thing here is that you think anyone will listen to you, believe you, or give a shit what you think when you post something like this without any evidence, logic, or basis in fact. In the future, try posting some actual data if you want to not look like a complete tool.
Long story short, you're not very good at this. Drink Coke, Play Again.
YES! Thank you! It's like no one actually bothers doing research any more, and just goes to whatever blog/news site best fits their current world view, no matter how far from reality it may be.
Speaking of "not on the record", most rapes aren't reported which means this statistic is much higher, and contrary to your complaint, it does not "usually" end up in expulsion. We're looking at less than a third of cases ending in expulsion, and this is data for only those who are found "guilty". Suspension's a bit more likely, but I REALLY don't think it's a great idea to keep someone who has been found guilty of sexual assault on campus.
This has nothing to do with the relations between Brazil and Japan and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo is dying. This company has shown time and again that all they can do is release tired useless gimmick after tired useless gimmick and pass that off as "innovation". They release the same games every single year with absolutely no change and force their customers to pay a massive premium. The Wii was a massive joke, except no one laughed. Their 3DS handheld has less power than the original PlayStation Portable and costs 3 times as much and has no games. The Wii U has less power than the original XBOX much less the 360. Don't get me started on that abomination of a controller that weighs as much as a cinder-block, has a range of about 1 foot, and a battery life measured in minutes and not hours.
Nintendo is the corporate equivalent of the walking dead. I doubt they will even be around in five years. Even their own shareholders can't stand them. They would just be better selling off all their IP to a company that knows how to actually produce something, like Disney. Then Miyamoto and Iwata should do the world a favor and commit sepuku to atone for the massive failures they have inflicted on the game industry.
Ooo, this should be fun. I'mma go ahead and debunk basically everything you've just said that can be proven with numbers.
The Wii was a massive joke.: FALSE. The Wii has sold over 100 million units, and about 9 times as much software (so, about 9 games per console. Not bad!)
The 3DS handheld has less power than the original Playstation Portable and costs 3 times as much and has no games: FALSE. The 3DS runs an ARM11 Dual-core at 268 Mhz compared to the PSP's CPU held back to 222MHz. The only way it's more powerful is through mods/hacking. In addition, the 3DS has had over 186 million software units sold, compared to psp's 5.2 million. In addition, the PSP retailed for $199. The 3DS retailed for $249, and later went down to $149. So, no, not three times more.
The Wii U has less power than the original XBOX much less the 360: FALSE.The WII U is lcocked at 1.24 GHz, compared to the original Xbox's 733Mhz. Now, the Wii U does have a slower clock than the 360, but has more memory and a higher GPU clock. Raw CPU power will only get you so far, and the Wii U is more than capable of out-shining the 360.
Controller weighs as much as a cinder-block, has a range of 1 foot and battery life measured in minutes, not hours.: FALSE. The Wii U gamepad weighs about 1.1 pounds. Cinder blocks, on the other hand, usually come in at 30 to 35 pounds. The range goes up to 27.5 feet, but typically works best up to 15. The Battery life CAN be measured in minutes, but only if you consider that 180 to 300 minutes a better way of saying it than 3 to 5 hours.
Nintendo is the corporate equivalent of the walking dead. I doubt they'll even be around in five years.: FALSE. Nintendo has enough money saved up to last 52 years, assuming an annual deficit of 250 million. That seems unlikely given that they had a profit of over
Slashdot Mirror
That applies nicely to the court system and the state. It's less applicable in tech forums home to a wide variety of people from varying nations and jurisdictions.
We're allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Based on available information, I think these accusations have merit.
I'd really like to see some numbers on how his (Bezos) wealth breaks down, so I'd prefer more than your word on the matter. Beyond that, much of what he owns isn't just land, but is also real estate (homes, apartments, offices, the like) as is shown in the first posted article.
While we're at it, it's interesting to note that much of what has Trump's name on it isn't actually something he owns. He's a big fan of licensing his name and having no other involvement beyond that, which gives the illusion that he owns more than he actually does. This article in particular has some interesting things to note- particularly the latest assessment by Forbes of Trump's net worth. Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings. Doubly so when in the same article, Trump says his brand is worth 4 billion. So, no, according to Trump himself and the other sources available, most of his wealth does not come from real estate, local businesses or casinos. It comes from his brand and licensing.
I also find the idea of only land and real estate holders having the ability to vote quite disturbing. I'm at a point in my life where I'm able to put time and effort into researching candidates and politics, but I don't have the money necessary to own real estate. I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about. Since people who rent also don't own real estate, we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white, doesn't deserve a say in who represents them, even if they vastly outnumber the people who would be left with the vote.
Jeff Bezos is also a landowner. He's actually number 26 in the country, which seems to suggest he owns more than Trump.
The funny thing is that your point is essentially irrelevant. This isn't even about Reddit as an entity blocking anyone/anything, it's about users choosing to block people for whatever the reason might be.
Can this be used for people to ignore opposition and differing opinions? Yes- but by that token, so can "just not reading the post." Don't need a block feature built in for that. However, "not reading the post" isn't so useful when someone starts following and harassing you online. That's where the block feature starts to really shine.
In the hands of the users, the way the block tool will be used will be a reflection of Reddit's community, rather than the company of Reddit itself. A prime example of this is the upvote/downvote system. It can indeed be used as a method of saying what posts contribute to discussion and what do not- but many times it ends up being used as a "agree/disagree" button that ends up silencing anyone sufficiently with an opinion that is sufficiently unpopular. Sometimes this happens to trolls and bigots... other times to people who call out that same bigotry.
People love to complain about how Reddit is no longer an open platform for free speech... but with systems like that? It never was, despite what Reddit itself claimed.
How are we defining "real word" here? Typically I see people suggest that it need to be in "the dictionary", and by that definition cisgender/cisgendered certainly qualifies (given its inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary.) http://www.oxforddictionaries....
Lots of good stuff here! Now the only real problem left are the people leaving comments!
It's also rude to block the network access of everyone in the subway car just because a few people are talking. Phones are used for so much more than talking to people these days. Actually I shouldn't say rude- it's illegal.
Reading further down in that twitter post actually details why those tweets needed to be deleted. What Sushi was doing is called Sea-Lioning and is considered as Spam under Twitter's rules.
Oh they're accountable, Mr. Woof. To the shareholders. Like any other publicly traded business.
Please provide examples and sources of this actually happening on Twitter involving the Twitter staff.
As I was reading through your post, I had a lot to say... but then I came upon this little nugget here.
Mashiki cut off her quote to just "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" to summarize her idea. You disagree, but instead of showing a different idea, you just talk about a different approach (that is, seeing all that sexism as systems, individual vs societal levels). That's not a new idea. That's a new approach to promote her idea that there's sexism in our society.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you really suggesting there's not sexism in our society? That people do not suffer discrimination based on their sex/gender? That's the only way I can think of her promoting the idea that there's sexism in our society is a bad thing. If you think it's a lie, then of course you're going to think what she's doing is evil.
And if you really DO think that's a lie, then I'm concerned for the people around you. Are there no women in your life? Have you never spoken to one who's had to deal with men in the workplace? Have you never watched a commercial trying to use breasts to sell hamburgers/cars/web hosting? (Seriously, GoDaddy alone is a prime example...) We live in a world where you can get erectile dysfunction medicine for free on your health plan, but you have to pay an additional tax just to get pads or tampons for your period. Wait... Roosh, is that you?
We shall now return to our regularly scheduled post. (But seriously, holy shit, dude. What the fuck?)
You can't help? No, there are plenty of ways you can help. It's called understanding what an analogy is and isn't. It's called getting a sense of humor. There are plenty of ways you can do to help yourself be more capable of understanding what other people meant in their words.
My Star Wars analogy was to show that changing approaches is orthogonal to changing underlying ideas and beliefs. You spent the rest of your post talking about a bunch of other things you THINK my analogy meant to show, when I never meant any of those things. This is extra funny and sad because this sub-discussion is over what Anita meant, and here you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what I meant.
Oh, I know you were making an analogy- the problem is, it's a pretty fukken shit analogy. No one compares someone to Hitler because that person's art is bad. The people/things/objects you choose to make an analogy with have meaning beyond what you intended. As for the lack of a sense of humor, it's not my fault your joke sucks. It did give me a good opportunity to practice my Vader impression though when reading your post to my coworkers... that was good for a laugh, so thanks, I think.
Indeed, which is why my analogy was not meant to make that comparison. As I said above, whatever you think I meant by my analogy is fiction in your head.
Again, not my fault your analogy sucks. Just for your future reference, here's what analogy means:
analogy
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Choose your analogies carefully, and be mindful of who you make comparisons to. I'm actually a little surprised you didn't jump right to Hitler, but hey, at least Vader was redeemable.
Well, the only one using that example is you.
Eh, so it's not an "example". Poor word choice on my part, but largely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. I won't begrudge you for nitpicking, I've got so many other things to begrudge you over.
Nonsense. I'm the on
...? Are you serious? There's not a damn thing to support your statement in the link you provided, just several statements she made regarding the shit she and other women have had to deal with. And she's right about all of it, too.
It's bullshit to be labeled a "professional victim" just because you're willing to talk about the abuse you've had to put up with.
Assuming she doesn't play games because she's a woman is pretty sexist- and before you bring up the 2010 quote, she references gaming earlier in her life (unless you think playing NES games doesn't count.) Honestly I wouldn't call MYSELF a gamer either... not if it means being associated with people like you.
The games press is in no way obligated to allow people to post whatever shit they want (harassment, abuse, etc). There's a private business and should probably take down things like rape threats and well, anything that violates their ToS if they're so inclined. She's not saying "if you disagree with me about gaemz, you should be silenced!" She's saying "Women shouldn't have to put up with violence/abuse when they're just trying to talk about games."
She's also right about the Bayonetta reviews- not a whole lot said about the sexism of the games. There's an interesting aspect/dynamic to it regarding female sexual empowerment, but given that Nintendo worked with playboy for professional Bayonetta cosplay, you can't tell me THAT was about making female gamers feel good about themselves.
And hey, in the last quote she's not even talking about games! Just about how many mass shootings in the US are committed by men, especially men who feel royally butthurt over not getting laid. I kinda wished she'd mentioned the entitlement so many men feel, but that's for another discussion entirely.
If you really want to prove what you're saying, you're going to need to provide waaaaay more evidence. When her job is being an activist and pointing shit like this out, you're going to see her POINTING SHIT OUT. That doesn't mean she's pointing it all out- all the time, constantly. That doesn't mean she thinks literally every game is sexist, or that each individual man is evil.
Though with the constant harassment/threats she receives, I'm not even sure I'd blame her at this point. How dare she be a woman who talks about our precious vidja gaemz in a negative light!
So what? So she changed her approach. She isn't changing her underlying ideas and beliefs.
Darth Vader:
First off, I can't help but think someone who was bent on controlling the Galaxy isn't really an apt comparison to someone who wants better representation in video games, but that's as relevant to the conversation as, well, the rest of your post, I guess. (Which is to say, not at all.)
I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everybody's faith is lacking, everybody's power is insignificant next to the power of the Force, and I've got to point it all out in the form of choking people to death.
Informing people that there are systems of oppression/sexism/racism/homophobia/take your pick isn't QUITE the same as murder. I know you're just using this as an example, but it's rare I see an equivalence that's quite THIS false.
And then you settle into it, you start to understand these people have been living within these systems of Imperial Rule, with the Stormtrooper Academy for Marksmanship. So now I pick and choose my battles. I only choke people HALF to death. And I just cut off my son's hand and offer him to overthrow the Emperor with me. A new approach!
Ignoring again how irrelevant your example is (in that there's a big difference between pointing out problems in our society and outright MURDER), you're once more willfully ignoring the context in which this statement was made- which is to say, the difference between sexism on an individual level, and on a societal (systematic) level. She is not saying "That black pen on the desk is homophobic!", she's not saying "Eating chinese food is racist!", and she's not saying "AC's Slave Leia body pillow is sexist!"
You: But look, Vader is saying his old approach is not ACTUALLY useful way to approach issues!
Her old approach is largely irrelevant to how she is now, and there's only a problem if you think her underlying ideas and beliefs are a problem. So far, you haven't actually shown me that you UNDERSTAND her ideas and beliefs. Hell, you haven't even shown me you understand basic sociology. All I got from your comment is that you're a fan of Star Wars.
Yeah, Mashiki's right. You are ignorant.
I'd be hurt... if I had any real care for what you thought of me. In a world where I require your opinion for personal validation, I'd be devastated! You can call me names and insult me if you'd like- but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.
Feel free to go look up the entire context of that, I'll await as you prove yourself to be as ignorant as your comment is.
Done. As it turns out, AmiMojo is completely right in that she's saying the opposite of what the clip you posted suggests. The quote below comes from the point of the panel referenced in the youtube clip, in which she discusses her initially learning about feminism, and then growing from that starting point into trying to do actual good.
"I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everything is sexist, everything is racist, and everything is homophobic, and you have to point all out, to everyone, all the time. So there's a good year of my life where I was just the most obnoxious person to be around.
And then you settle into it, you start to understand that people have been living within these systems, and it was just sort of a liberating moment for me, and you learn how to pick and choose your battles, and that sort of thing, but, I think that's the critical piece here that we have to understand this as systems. And I really like what you're saying, because that's fundamentally challenging power dynamics. We don't want equality within these oppressive systems, we want to create actual real equity. "
She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues (and how awful she was when she was acting like that.) She makes it very clear that she doesn't approve of the approach you're ascribing to her. Specifically this is in reference to another part of the discussion, in which she's talking about the differences between sexism/oppression and individual choice versus those same things as a system (so, sociology.) The only way to come to the conclusion you've chosen is to either only watch the 6 second clip, or to willfully misinterpret her words in order to reinforce your predetermined conclusion of her/her cause/feminism/what have you.
By all means, organize something. Shit, I'd probably even support you in doing so. Other minorities/ethnic groups aren't really obligated to protest/raise awareness for YOUR issue, but I'm actually pretty sure you'd see a lot of support from them, as St. Patrick's day IS pretty offensive towards Irish folk in a lot of ways.
And then of course you'd get all the people calling you a lunatic SJW for daring to make them question their actions/behaviors.
I wish
to spew bullshit.
Funny how clever editing that removes context works. The youtuber used it to say what they wanted people to think Anita was saying.
I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.
Does anyone know what this is referencing? I can't seem to find any info, and I've forever polluted my search history.
"STRAW MAN. 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."
Funny, because no one in this comment line has made the argument that false reports don't happen/aren't important. That would make the position suggested imaginary and easily confuted, because we ourselves would argue against those not mattering. As a result, it fits the definition so perfectly that were it any more obvious, it would be used to scare crows.
I gave your suggestion a shot, and as it turns out the only nonsensical thing here is that you think anyone will listen to you, believe you, or give a shit what you think when you post something like this without any evidence, logic, or basis in fact. In the future, try posting some actual data if you want to not look like a complete tool.
Long story short, you're not very good at this. Drink Coke, Play Again.
YES! Thank you! It's like no one actually bothers doing research any more, and just goes to whatever blog/news site best fits their current world view, no matter how far from reality it may be.
Speaking of "not on the record", most rapes aren't reported which means this statistic is much higher, and contrary to your complaint, it does not "usually" end up in expulsion. We're looking at less than a third of cases ending in expulsion, and this is data for only those who are found "guilty". Suspension's a bit more likely, but I REALLY don't think it's a great idea to keep someone who has been found guilty of sexual assault on campus.
This would hold more weight if it had any basis in fact whatsoever. Men actually have a much higher chance of BEING sexually assaulted than being falsely accused of it.
It is a most lamentable fact that I don't have any mod points right now... but here's a +1 boost to you in spirit.
This has nothing to do with the relations between Brazil and Japan and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo is dying. This company has shown time and again that all they can do is release tired useless gimmick after tired useless gimmick and pass that off as "innovation". They release the same games every single year with absolutely no change and force their customers to pay a massive premium. The Wii was a massive joke, except no one laughed. Their 3DS handheld has less power than the original PlayStation Portable and costs 3 times as much and has no games. The Wii U has less power than the original XBOX much less the 360. Don't get me started on that abomination of a controller that weighs as much as a cinder-block, has a range of about 1 foot, and a battery life measured in minutes and not hours.
Nintendo is the corporate equivalent of the walking dead. I doubt they will even be around in five years. Even their own shareholders can't stand them. They would just be better selling off all their IP to a company that knows how to actually produce something, like Disney. Then Miyamoto and Iwata should do the world a favor and commit sepuku to atone for the massive failures they have inflicted on the game industry.
Ooo, this should be fun. I'mma go ahead and debunk basically everything you've just said that can be proven with numbers.
The Wii was a massive joke.: FALSE. The Wii has sold over 100 million units, and about 9 times as much software (so, about 9 games per console. Not bad!)
The 3DS handheld has less power than the original Playstation Portable and costs 3 times as much and has no games: FALSE. The 3DS runs an ARM11 Dual-core at 268 Mhz compared to the PSP's CPU held back to 222MHz. The only way it's more powerful is through mods/hacking. In addition, the 3DS has had over 186 million software units sold, compared to psp's 5.2 million. In addition, the PSP retailed for $199. The 3DS retailed for $249, and later went down to $149. So, no, not three times more.
The Wii U has less power than the original XBOX much less the 360: FALSE.The WII U is lcocked at 1.24 GHz, compared to the original Xbox's 733Mhz. Now, the Wii U does have a slower clock than the 360, but has more memory and a higher GPU clock. Raw CPU power will only get you so far, and the Wii U is more than capable of out-shining the 360.
Controller weighs as much as a cinder-block, has a range of 1 foot and battery life measured in minutes, not hours.: FALSE. The Wii U gamepad weighs about 1.1 pounds. Cinder blocks, on the other hand, usually come in at 30 to 35 pounds. The range goes up to 27.5 feet, but typically works best up to 15. The Battery life CAN be measured in minutes, but only if you consider that 180 to 300 minutes a better way of saying it than 3 to 5 hours.
Nintendo is the corporate equivalent of the walking dead. I doubt they'll even be around in five years.: FALSE. Nintendo has enough money saved up to last 52 years, assuming an annual deficit of 250 million. That seems unlikely given that they had a profit of over
Much obliged, Serviscope!