So... what was the EU supposed to do, maybe you could tell us. There is a company that pretty much ignores your laws. What do you do?
Block them Make it a crime punishable by prison for anyone caught trying to bypass blocking Google. Come up with your own operating system and make that the default t OS on any phone coming into the EU. Consult with China - they are the experts on control of the Internet.
And the European Union unquestionably demands control over the internet - to the point of demanding that the rest of teh world kowtow to those demands.
Me? I geoblocked them on my websites. After all, that bows to their demands as well as being subservient to them.
Anyhow, I'm certain the Chinese can give the EU all the blocking they need.
It may seem odd, but over here in the EU, our goal is actually for you to heed the law rather than ensuring it's impossible so we can squeeze as much as we can out of you. But I guess the old German saying is true, the knave thinks as he is.
They were told it was a problem but decided to continue doing it anyway. Plus the law is quite clear, and doesn't only start applying once someone points out you are violating it.
The EU will use the money for a variety of things that help affected companies indirectly.
I dunno, seems like the smartest thing to do would be to squeeze Google for as much money as long as possible. You would want to take them just to the point where they consider puling out, but no further.
If this was not a pure and simple money grab, the EU would simply start a China style blocking of these internet companies like Google that are doing so much damage to the EU. But they really just want what they believe is their cut of the pie.
So why isn't the response "fix these abusive practices, or be denied access to our market" rather than "give us a bunch of money".
Because they actually want Google to continue te practices, so that they can get more money. If they kick Google out, they get no money. They must have money! Google has money - so they must give the EU money!
Does that money go to entirely to a fund to help those disadvantaged by Google? Or does that money go into the same coffers of the people who levied the fine?
Oh - didn't you hear? the roughly 512 million people living in the EU are all going to get a check for the damages that Google has done. After all, that's a lot of damage Google has done.
All these arguments about the altruistic reasons for penalizing Google only make sense if the punishment adresses those concerns. In this case (and most of these high profile EU antitrust cases) it really just looks like a shakedown for more revenue.
It is exactly a shakedown. Funny how the EU is big on trying to regulate the world. But they aren't even doing that - they just want a big cut of the profits.
Disclaimer - I don't like Google one bit. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that this is a money grab, pure and simple.
Because Apple, as all the Android fans on/. are quick to point out, is non-dominant also-ran in the phone market. Just going by sales numbers alone, there is no anti-trust case to be made against Apple.
Kinda weird then, that the Android fans spend their time freaking out and going crazy about that also-ran company.
To add insult to injury for those poor iPhone users, Androoid has the best malware, both pre-installed and from the Google play store.
But seriously, I envision that Android fans also drive Toyota Corollas, after all they are the most popular car in the world. Just like their Android phones.
So I'm an idiot for keeping a phone for 8-10 years, that was given to me my previous employer.
How many phone have you purchased during that time and how much did each cost?
$300 each, $400 each $500 each?
bet you've spent about $800-$1000 for all your new phones....
Yea, I'll update, when I feel like it before the end of 2019.
You could get rid of your phone, and not spend anything on them.
It is funny that people consider flip phones to be ancient. Many people don't even have a mobile phone. I am 65 and I didn't have one until I was in my 30s.
My Uncle Fred doesn't have email and is proud of it.
Funny! I have several persons in my circle of friends and acquaintances who still use 2G phones and don't want anything else. And why should they? W
hy should someone need to use the internet at all with their mobile phone? But then again telcos won't try to switch them off anytime soon in the country where I live, I guess.
Hi GrandPa!
Actually, its pretty impressive the lengths some people will go to stay in the past. My wife has a few friends who actually brag about not having a computer, and use ancient flip phones.
I know this because every time these luddites need something from the internet, I get to do it for them.
So talking about something else entirely is something else entirely. Well done. I shall endeavour to remember that the only way to satisfy you in an argument is to guess which direction you want to veer off into.
Saying she was a bit rude is like saying Harvey Weinstein was a bit pushy when dealing with women.
Not remotely the same order of magnitude.
Funny how you want to completely control the narrative. Magnitude is not remotely the issue here. Fact is, this woman hates men, and attempts to turn a completely polite disagreement into a sexist men against women screed. She has a track record of this. Even a mild form of "A bit rude", is not in the least condemning here. It is like saying that you agree with her premise, but not her delivery. She was "rude" - yes. But she wasn't just rude. She was rude, and she was sexist, and she was attempting to turn every discussion with her by a man into sexism on his part. And having a track record of continually doing that, she was very deservedly terminated.
Weinstein is total scum at best, and used his power to fuck women in order for them to secure acting parts. He's scum and wrong and deserves to be removed from society.
The point which you haven't gotten on all of that, is that a sexist hate filled woman who was most definitely wrong in her actions, and was dismissed as "a bit rude" is hardly a condemnation. A creepy rapist is likewise wrong. And orders of magnitude aside, to say he was pushy is simply the same thing.
Point is, when people are wrong, they are wrong. And whitewashing them with silly statements like "A bit rude" is not condemnation, it is saying that they were correct, but their delivery was a problem. She was simply wrong, she deserved what she got. Weinstein is getting the same.
I wouldn't be in a room with her without a witness present.
In the workplace, that's pretty much par for the course for any woman nowadays. Not to mention some men.
We live in a world where winking at a woman can end your career via a sexual harassment accusation.
I do wonder how it feels to now be an employee that is so fragile, and has to be handled with kid gloves, one who men are extremely guarded round, second and third guessing every statement they make to you to ascertain if you might take offense and end his career. To be untrusted by normal men.
I hope that this situation is actually what women wanted. I kind of doubt that it is though.
Yeah, but the source argument was that tRump won because he took more counties.
Dirt doesn't vote. Joe Dirt didn't vote often enough to keep their god from losing by 2.86 million votes.
The EC violates the 14th Amendment. Time for the EC to go
The Electoral College is an outdated system that is overdue for retirement. It is very susceptible to gaming, and does not have equl representation per capita.
And yes, people can bloviate about it being the law. And the selfsame people are ones who's party has benefited from that unequal representation. Make no mistake, they strut like cock-a-whoops nw, but if Mrs Clinton was elected with a marked minority of votes, we'd be in civil war 2 now.
The discussion that must be had is exactly how a candidate for president can lose while receiving almost 3 million more votes? This indicates a really bad systemic problem. This is the opposite of representative government.
Coupled with the ease with which the American voting system can be manipulated, that's a recipe for disaster.
A bit rude? Wow - talk about condemning with incredibly faint condemning.
So it WAS condeming. You have finally admitted that you simply invented a claim about AmiMojo.
Now on the more serious side, at least I can have a civil conversation with Animojo. You on the other hand, are pretty incapable of that sort of thing.
I've had many civil conversations with AmiMojo.
A bit rude? Wow - talk about condemning with incredibly faint condemning.
So it WAS condeming.
You write like a person who tries to invalidate an argument by searching for punctuation. But more on that.
You have finally admitted that you simply invented a claim about AmiMojo.
No, not at all. Taking the body of that woman's work, the rather impressive litany of undigused hatred of the male of the species - to the point of taking joy of another's death, and labeling it as "a bit rude" is very much standing up for her.
Saying she was a bit rude is like saying Harvey Weinstein was a bit pushy when dealing with women.
I don't think ideals are necessarily a bad thing. It's important to have a vision of an ideal world you want to work towards. However, at the same time, you need to acknowledge where the real world diverges from the ideal world and build protections in your "-ism" to handle the case of when your ideal breaks down.
If I were to stake a claim to an ideal, It would be Libertarian. But I'm just too pragmatic to ever believe it could work. I'm big on letting people alone, but few people have that discipline. And that means left or right wing. Neither likes letting people do as they will, if it causes no harm. Both sides just redefine harm.
Does that extend to simply making shit up to "prove" a point?
Lame, I've been reading Animojo's posts since I've been here, and his positions on matters of feminist social justice have been pretty consistent. Now, mind you, if you care to point out exactly what shit I made up, hell I'll acknowledge it.
You can not find not fault in anything any female would ever do.
Oh, looks like a yes!
I'm surprised that you even went so far as "a bit rude."
So you even admit he foud fault but said he didn't anyway. You're weird.
A bit rude? Wow - talk about condemning with incredibly faint condemning. Here is a woman rejoicing over a social media "enemy's" death via cancer, who freaks over constructive disagreement, then plays the sexist card pretty hard, while representing the company she works for - sorry that's not a bit rude. That's a metric fuckton of rude and sexism to boot.
Now on the more serious side, at least I can have a civil conversation with Animojo. You on the other hand, are pretty incapable of that sort of thing. You apparently find personal insults to be a fitting substitute for cogent arguments. And that's okay - I mean you are what you are, and I've realized that early on in interactions with you.
The woman who is "a bit rude" had had these things to say while representing her employer:
"The kindest thing I can say is "Im glad he's no longer around to see doing harm." referring to a Youtuber "Total Biscuit" whom she had disagreements with who had just died of Cancer.
Some content creator was politely referred to by her as "Mansplaining Rando Asshat" and "Since we've got a lot of hurt manfeels today, lemme make something clear: this is my feed."
Her being fired was because she was compliling a volume of work, and since she liket to reference who she worked for, she was setting herself up as a representative even on her own feed.
And that's the real rub. I don't care what you say or do. But if you act out while representing whoever it is you are working for, then you need to be disciplined.
But hey - I do exactly understand why you would wholeheartedly support her.
You mean where I point out you're the last village idiot insisting the Emperor is wearing the finest livery when it's obvious to everyone that he's wearing nothing but boxers? Someday you'll have the same response to Russiagate that you'll have when your grandkids ask you if you were one of those people running around smearing Iraq war skeptics as Saddam Lovers back in 2003. "Uh, no junior, I always knew Bush and Cheney were lying to us. I totally wasn't a gullible fool and an total asshole to anyone who actually knew better. Promise!"
And Cheney actually went through the trouble of presenting evidence. Fake or bullshit evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Who knew he could have skipped all that work and just made assertions without a shred of evidence, and people like you would just eat that shit up. With a spoon. Shit handed to you from the very same liars.
Excellent! That was tneertaining so keep it up. I love it! Thank you anyhow Alexi , but remember, I am a harsh taskmaster, so you'll have to up your game with every reply. Hugs and kisses, and word up! TTFN. Youre doing a hellava job so far.
Isn't it funny how bigotry is a wonderful and proper thing as long as it is the far left that espouses the bigotry and racism?
This is an example of why I consider that left or right is not a ruler, but a circular continuum. Starting out is the middle facing us. As people go left or right, and the further they go left or right, the eventually meet in the back with the same abount ot hatred, racism, and bigotry. They will scream and yell how they are not at all alike, but at the core, they have the same outlook, merely about different groups.
And just when we figured that Hootie and the Blowfish meant that racism was gonna - Nooooooo! Too many white men in bicycling!!! https://www.digitaltrends.com/...
So yeah, while the feminists and their sycophants strut around like they are so inclusive, so tolerant, so benign, they really need a uniform that suits their actual sexism and racism. I would suggest a rainbow tapestry gown and a pointy hood, modeled after their conservative doppelgängers, the Ku Klux Klan.
Stop taking it, then. You guys have any tinglings of awareness when you start throwing out bullshit when challenged instead of facts?
No, Actually I'm ridiculing you. Find your own facts tovarisch. They are out there. Problem is, you are either a Russian shill, or a useful idiot who has no plans of paying attention to the facts. Eithr way, you are my playtoy.
You serve no purpose to me other than to make fun of you, and if I can get you into a spittle froth mouth rage, which you are always near to anyhow, then my work here is done, Ivan.
She was more than a "bit" rude, she was openly sexist. Using the term "mansplaining" is quite enough for that. She did this while acting in a professional capability, which happens automatically when she discusses her work and she was rightfully fired for it. Then some male sexists (just as much scum) jumped on this.
Remember though, that if a person is sexist on one way or another, they will not see that their terms were sexist. Many feminists are both terribly sexist as well as racist in nature. But when one of them mentions something about problems being caused by "White males", the others will nod their heads wisely as they do not see that blaming to a person by their sex as sexist, or blaming them based on their race is racist.
The worst part is they do not see that they are just as bigoted as white supremacists. They are only rooting for the other side. But they are still what they are. Here is a great example of sanctioned racism:
White is a race, Men is a gender (or sex if you prefer)
The headline reads: The Bank of England Has Way Too Many White Men, U.K. Lawmakers Say
Hmmmm White - hey, that is race, Men Hey, that is sex, Too many people of a race and gender.
So let's diddle that headline a little:
The Bank of England Has Way Too Many Black women, U.K. Lawmakers Say
Is that racist? Is that sexist?
Why yes, it is. Bigoted as all hell. And quite socially acceptable. We don't even blink when a woman or her sycophants scream about how awful men are, or how all problems are the fault of those white men. Held up as an aspiration - Held up as the solution is getting rid of white men. Funny how the people claiming they are working for social justice are such racist bigots. They are become their own enemy.
I guess it depends how sensitive you are. Seems mild compared to a lot of the stuff that gets posted, and harsh for an instant firing offense with no warning.
So anyhow - you would stand up for a guy who did the same thing? I've read enough of your postings to know that you would be completely on board with any female who took a Themla and Louise solution to a man who took too long to cross the street - I think thay call that manwalking.
KNow thyself Animojo. I am an asshole, I know and admit it. You can not find not fault in anything any female would ever do. I'm surprised that you even went so far as "a bit rude."
Slashdot Mirror
So ... what was the EU supposed to do, maybe you could tell us. There is a company that pretty much ignores your laws. What do you do?
Block them Make it a crime punishable by prison for anyone caught trying to bypass blocking Google. Come up with your own operating system and make that the default t OS on any phone coming into the EU. Consult with China - they are the experts on control of the Internet.
And the European Union unquestionably demands control over the internet - to the point of demanding that the rest of teh world kowtow to those demands.
Me? I geoblocked them on my websites. After all, that bows to their demands as well as being subservient to them.
Anyhow, I'm certain the Chinese can give the EU all the blocking they need.
It may seem odd, but over here in the EU, our goal is actually for you to heed the law rather than ensuring it's impossible so we can squeeze as much as we can out of you. But I guess the old German saying is true, the knave thinks as he is.
Yeah - Germans have many sayings.
This isn't the united states, the EU doesn't do money grabs.
Cute. Okay - let's say this isn't a money grab. Show me the 5 billion dollars of actual damage Google has done to the European Union via Android.
Look I hate Google as much as the next intelligent person - but I know a money grab when I see one.
They were told it was a problem but decided to continue doing it anyway. Plus the law is quite clear, and doesn't only start applying once someone points out you are violating it.
The EU will use the money for a variety of things that help affected companies indirectly.
I dunno, seems like the smartest thing to do would be to squeeze Google for as much money as long as possible. You would want to take them just to the point where they consider puling out, but no further.
If this was not a pure and simple money grab, the EU would simply start a China style blocking of these internet companies like Google that are doing so much damage to the EU. But they really just want what they believe is their cut of the pie.
From the Guardian link:
"Vestager says that the fine will be returned to EU member states, based on how much each country pays into the EU budget."
So it is in the EU member states best interest that Google continue their present practices, and be fined more money.
So why isn't the response "fix these abusive practices, or be denied access to our market" rather than "give us a bunch of money".
Because they actually want Google to continue te practices, so that they can get more money. If they kick Google out, they get no money. They must have money! Google has money - so they must give the EU money!
Does that money go to entirely to a fund to help those disadvantaged by Google? Or does that money go into the same coffers of the people who levied the fine?
Oh - didn't you hear? the roughly 512 million people living in the EU are all going to get a check for the damages that Google has done. After all, that's a lot of damage Google has done.
All these arguments about the altruistic reasons for penalizing Google only make sense if the punishment adresses those concerns. In this case (and most of these high profile EU antitrust cases) it really just looks like a shakedown for more revenue.
It is exactly a shakedown. Funny how the EU is big on trying to regulate the world. But they aren't even doing that - they just want a big cut of the profits.
Disclaimer - I don't like Google one bit. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that this is a money grab, pure and simple.
Because Apple, as all the Android fans on /. are quick to point out, is non-dominant also-ran in the phone market. Just going by sales numbers alone, there is no anti-trust case to be made against Apple.
Kinda weird then, that the Android fans spend their time freaking out and going crazy about that also-ran company.
To add insult to injury for those poor iPhone users, Androoid has the best malware, both pre-installed and from the Google play store.
But seriously, I envision that Android fans also drive Toyota Corollas, after all they are the most popular car in the world. Just like their Android phones.
So I'm an idiot for keeping a phone for 8-10 years, that was given to me my previous employer. How many phone have you purchased during that time and how much did each cost? $300 each, $400 each $500 each? bet you've spent about $800-$1000 for all your new phones....
Yea, I'll update, when I feel like it before the end of 2019.
You could get rid of your phone, and not spend anything on them.
I'm 31 and I have a flip phone. I did have smartphones but found them too distracting.
I know some folks who have no mobile phone at all. Or email, or computers. They have everyone beat.
It is funny that people consider flip phones to be ancient. Many people don't even have a mobile phone. I am 65 and I didn't have one until I was in my 30s.
My Uncle Fred doesn't have email and is proud of it.
Funny! I have several persons in my circle of friends and acquaintances who still use 2G phones and don't want anything else. And why should they? W
hy should someone need to use the internet at all with their mobile phone? But then again telcos won't try to switch them off anytime soon in the country where I live, I guess.
Hi GrandPa!
Actually, its pretty impressive the lengths some people will go to stay in the past. My wife has a few friends who actually brag about not having a computer, and use ancient flip phones.
I know this because every time these luddites need something from the internet, I get to do it for them.
Taking the body of that woman's work,
So talking about something else entirely is something else entirely. Well done. I shall endeavour to remember that the only way to satisfy you in an argument is to guess which direction you want to veer off into.
Saying she was a bit rude is like saying Harvey Weinstein was a bit pushy when dealing with women.
Not remotely the same order of magnitude.
Funny how you want to completely control the narrative. Magnitude is not remotely the issue here. Fact is, this woman hates men, and attempts to turn a completely polite disagreement into a sexist men against women screed. She has a track record of this. Even a mild form of "A bit rude", is not in the least condemning here. It is like saying that you agree with her premise, but not her delivery. She was "rude" - yes. But she wasn't just rude. She was rude, and she was sexist, and she was attempting to turn every discussion with her by a man into sexism on his part. And having a track record of continually doing that, she was very deservedly terminated.
Weinstein is total scum at best, and used his power to fuck women in order for them to secure acting parts. He's scum and wrong and deserves to be removed from society.
The point which you haven't gotten on all of that, is that a sexist hate filled woman who was most definitely wrong in her actions, and was dismissed as "a bit rude" is hardly a condemnation. A creepy rapist is likewise wrong. And orders of magnitude aside, to say he was pushy is simply the same thing.
Point is, when people are wrong, they are wrong. And whitewashing them with silly statements like "A bit rude" is not condemnation, it is saying that they were correct, but their delivery was a problem. She was simply wrong, she deserved what she got. Weinstein is getting the same.
I wouldn't be in a room with her without a witness present.
In the workplace, that's pretty much par for the course for any woman nowadays. Not to mention some men.
We live in a world where winking at a woman can end your career via a sexual harassment accusation.
I do wonder how it feels to now be an employee that is so fragile, and has to be handled with kid gloves, one who men are extremely guarded round, second and third guessing every statement they make to you to ascertain if you might take offense and end his career. To be untrusted by normal men.
I hope that this situation is actually what women wanted. I kind of doubt that it is though.
Yeah, but the source argument was that tRump won because he took more counties. Dirt doesn't vote. Joe Dirt didn't vote often enough to keep their god from losing by 2.86 million votes. The EC violates the 14th Amendment. Time for the EC to go
The Electoral College is an outdated system that is overdue for retirement. It is very susceptible to gaming, and does not have equl representation per capita.
And yes, people can bloviate about it being the law. And the selfsame people are ones who's party has benefited from that unequal representation. Make no mistake, they strut like cock-a-whoops nw, but if Mrs Clinton was elected with a marked minority of votes, we'd be in civil war 2 now.
The discussion that must be had is exactly how a candidate for president can lose while receiving almost 3 million more votes? This indicates a really bad systemic problem. This is the opposite of representative government.
Coupled with the ease with which the American voting system can be manipulated, that's a recipe for disaster.
Oh........ wait.......
A bit rude? Wow - talk about condemning with incredibly faint condemning.
So it WAS condeming. You have finally admitted that you simply invented a claim about AmiMojo.
Now on the more serious side, at least I can have a civil conversation with Animojo. You on the other hand, are pretty incapable of that sort of thing.
I've had many civil conversations with AmiMojo.
A bit rude? Wow - talk about condemning with incredibly faint condemning.
So it WAS condeming.
You write like a person who tries to invalidate an argument by searching for punctuation. But more on that.
You have finally admitted that you simply invented a claim about AmiMojo.
No, not at all. Taking the body of that woman's work, the rather impressive litany of undigused hatred of the male of the species - to the point of taking joy of another's death, and labeling it as "a bit rude" is very much standing up for her.
Saying she was a bit rude is like saying Harvey Weinstein was a bit pushy when dealing with women.
I don't think ideals are necessarily a bad thing. It's important to have a vision of an ideal world you want to work towards. However, at the same time, you need to acknowledge where the real world diverges from the ideal world and build protections in your "-ism" to handle the case of when your ideal breaks down.
If I were to stake a claim to an ideal, It would be Libertarian. But I'm just too pragmatic to ever believe it could work. I'm big on letting people alone, but few people have that discipline. And that means left or right wing. Neither likes letting people do as they will, if it causes no harm. Both sides just redefine harm.
I am an asshole, I know and admit it.
Does that extend to simply making shit up to "prove" a point?
Lame, I've been reading Animojo's posts since I've been here, and his positions on matters of feminist social justice have been pretty consistent. Now, mind you, if you care to point out exactly what shit I made up, hell I'll acknowledge it.
You can not find not fault in anything any female would ever do.
Oh, looks like a yes!
I'm surprised that you even went so far as "a bit rude."
So you even admit he foud fault but said he didn't anyway. You're weird.
A bit rude? Wow - talk about condemning with incredibly faint condemning. Here is a woman rejoicing over a social media "enemy's" death via cancer, who freaks over constructive disagreement, then plays the sexist card pretty hard, while representing the company she works for - sorry that's not a bit rude. That's a metric fuckton of rude and sexism to boot.
Now on the more serious side, at least I can have a civil conversation with Animojo. You on the other hand, are pretty incapable of that sort of thing. You apparently find personal insults to be a fitting substitute for cogent arguments. And that's okay - I mean you are what you are, and I've realized that early on in interactions with you.
The woman who is "a bit rude" had had these things to say while representing her employer:
"The kindest thing I can say is "Im glad he's no longer around to see doing harm." referring to a Youtuber "Total Biscuit" whom she had disagreements with who had just died of Cancer.
Some content creator was politely referred to by her as "Mansplaining Rando Asshat" and "Since we've got a lot of hurt manfeels today, lemme make something clear: this is my feed."
Her being fired was because she was compliling a volume of work, and since she liket to reference who she worked for, she was setting herself up as a representative even on her own feed.
And that's the real rub. I don't care what you say or do. But if you act out while representing whoever it is you are working for, then you need to be disciplined. But hey - I do exactly understand why you would wholeheartedly support her.
You mean where I point out you're the last village idiot insisting the Emperor is wearing the finest livery when it's obvious to everyone that he's wearing nothing but boxers? Someday you'll have the same response to Russiagate that you'll have when your grandkids ask you if you were one of those people running around smearing Iraq war skeptics as Saddam Lovers back in 2003. "Uh, no junior, I always knew Bush and Cheney were lying to us. I totally wasn't a gullible fool and an total asshole to anyone who actually knew better. Promise!"
And Cheney actually went through the trouble of presenting evidence. Fake or bullshit evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Who knew he could have skipped all that work and just made assertions without a shred of evidence, and people like you would just eat that shit up. With a spoon. Shit handed to you from the very same liars.
Excellent! That was tneertaining so keep it up. I love it! Thank you anyhow Alexi , but remember, I am a harsh taskmaster, so you'll have to up your game with every reply. Hugs and kisses, and word up! TTFN. Youre doing a hellava job so far.
Yeah, take a look at this:
https://www.ephemera-inc.com/Can-t-we-give-old-white-men-their-own-little-count-p/1378.htm
That's just plain bigotry, folks.
Isn't it funny how bigotry is a wonderful and proper thing as long as it is the far left that espouses the bigotry and racism?
This is an example of why I consider that left or right is not a ruler, but a circular continuum. Starting out is the middle facing us. As people go left or right, and the further they go left or right, the eventually meet in the back with the same abount ot hatred, racism, and bigotry. They will scream and yell how they are not at all alike, but at the core, they have the same outlook, merely about different groups.
More reading material:
https://thebristolcable.org/20...
http://feministing.com/2013/01... This little gem was feminists pissed that the OBlama administration was too white!
Stop reading books by White cisgendered men!!!!! https://www.xojane.com/enterta....
CBS is too fucking White!! http://ew.com/article/2014/07/...
Google is going to stop hireing white guys https://www.digitaltrends.com/...
And just when we figured that Hootie and the Blowfish meant that racism was gonna - Nooooooo! Too many white men in bicycling!!! https://www.digitaltrends.com/...
So yeah, while the feminists and their sycophants strut around like they are so inclusive, so tolerant, so benign, they really need a uniform that suits their actual sexism and racism. I would suggest a rainbow tapestry gown and a pointy hood, modeled after their conservative doppelgängers, the Ku Klux Klan.
Stop taking it, then. You guys have any tinglings of awareness when you start throwing out bullshit when challenged instead of facts?
No, Actually I'm ridiculing you. Find your own facts tovarisch. They are out there. Problem is, you are either a Russian shill, or a useful idiot who has no plans of paying attention to the facts. Eithr way, you are my playtoy.
You serve no purpose to me other than to make fun of you, and if I can get you into a spittle froth mouth rage, which you are always near to anyhow, then my work here is done, Ivan.
Now - continue entertainimg me.
So anyhow, Is there some reason that these wind turbines cannot be maintained? Last time I checked, they had parts like most other things have parts.
Not unlike Jessica Price's writing HEY-OOOO
I have manhurts now.
Systemd made the russian trolls hack the election!! Why are you so blind to reality?!?!!!11!onetwotilde
Using Macs.
She was more than a "bit" rude, she was openly sexist. Using the term "mansplaining" is quite enough for that. She did this while acting in a professional capability, which happens automatically when she discusses her work and she was rightfully fired for it. Then some male sexists (just as much scum) jumped on this.
Remember though, that if a person is sexist on one way or another, they will not see that their terms were sexist. Many feminists are both terribly sexist as well as racist in nature. But when one of them mentions something about problems being caused by "White males", the others will nod their heads wisely as they do not see that blaming to a person by their sex as sexist, or blaming them based on their race is racist.
The worst part is they do not see that they are just as bigoted as white supremacists. They are only rooting for the other side. But they are still what they are. Here is a great example of sanctioned racism:
http://fortune.com/2017/10/20/... n
White is a race, Men is a gender (or sex if you prefer) The headline reads: The Bank of England Has Way Too Many White Men, U.K. Lawmakers Say
Hmmmm White - hey, that is race, Men Hey, that is sex, Too many people of a race and gender.
So let's diddle that headline a little: The Bank of England Has Way Too Many Black women, U.K. Lawmakers Say
Is that racist? Is that sexist?
Why yes, it is. Bigoted as all hell. And quite socially acceptable. We don't even blink when a woman or her sycophants scream about how awful men are, or how all problems are the fault of those white men. Held up as an aspiration - Held up as the solution is getting rid of white men. Funny how the people claiming they are working for social justice are such racist bigots. They are become their own enemy.
I guess it depends how sensitive you are. Seems mild compared to a lot of the stuff that gets posted, and harsh for an instant firing offense with no warning.
So anyhow - you would stand up for a guy who did the same thing? I've read enough of your postings to know that you would be completely on board with any female who took a Themla and Louise solution to a man who took too long to cross the street - I think thay call that manwalking.
KNow thyself Animojo. I am an asshole, I know and admit it. You can not find not fault in anything any female would ever do. I'm surprised that you even went so far as "a bit rude."
But you'd never admit it.