Does this mean Kim Kardashian will no longer be the most popular woman in the world?
Wtf is "Kim Kardashian"? (paraphrasing Ozzie)
Seriously, the rest of the world doesn't know or care about a US reality TV starlet.
Well first off, you do know that there are "services" that people like Kim or anyone for that matter - can purchase to have fake accounts created to follow them, don't you? Those are probably a big part of this culling.
We're in 2018. What classic Mac OS software do you still need to run? And if you absolutely need to, nothing is preventing you from running it inside a VM.
Final Cut Studio suite. Apple's sound suite. As well, I much prefer a Unix environment..
As for running a VM on Windows, there is no way I'm trading a 100 percent uptime machine to run brittle Windows ten - and put up with all of the regular failures it has?
Interesting enough, I do run Windows 7 in Bootcamp on my personal Mac. It works pretty well. Not a VM of course, but pretty much the opposite of what you suggest.
What I absolutely need - and this is the most important part - I need my machine to boot up, run it's software correctly, and make my schedule. Not spend a couple hours every so often troubleshooting and replacing drivers that Microsoft decided I need.
I wonder if the White Knights know what feminists think of them?
Well to be fair, given the frequency in which many self-described "male feminists" end up being accused or convicted of rape or sexual assault, those feminists' preconceived notions of them in particular are not entirely unjustified.
You are correct. There was a Youtube video I watched nce that reeled of name after name of male feminists who were convicted of sexcrime against women.
I suspect that it is a form of projection, similar to how many conservatives rail on about homosexuality, only to be caught having sex with another guy. Being a "feminist" in order to get close to and get easy interaction with women.
They don't innovate anymore. They wait for someone to innovate and then either buy them or, if that fails, throw a shitload of money into a competing product to muscle them out of the business.
Since when did an upcoming announcement become news?
Wait until they announce something.
At least when Steve Jobs was around there was some excitement about upcoming news events as something innovative might be announced, but no-one cares about minor hardware upgrades.
Yeah, those were the days, when Steve Jobs introduced new Windows products......
But she was responding to someone who seemed like a woman hating asshat who wants women to stop gaming and leave it to real men instead.
I didn't see that at all. Please read what kicked off this mess. I'll quote it exactly.
.
This. Its a big mean world, and if she cannot abide anyone disagreeing with her, she is simply not qualified to be in a workplace. If a man disagrees with you civilly - and he did - and your response is to go full potato with a string of hatred directed at men, and not his civil discussion, then no - you shouldn't be allowed to work in a career that has any interfacing with the public. It is painfully obvious that given her white hot hatred of males of the species - and after all, did he display misogyny in his post - no he didn't - then it is her who has a problem, one shared by those in here who defend her.
Actually, I think there is. As it is now, HBO is *giving* all that market away to.. shall we say, grey market sites, (at best.) If HBO dedicated some time and effort to capturing those eyeballs for themselves, there might well be many opportunities to monitize it that are being overlooked.
But here's the problem at the company level. #metoo has men being very careful about any and all interactions with women in the workplace.
You know, this line of thinking really surprises me. Hugely it does. Why?
Well, anyone who works in the corporate world for, oh, the last 10-20 years knows that sexist behavior towards women isn't tolerated.
This isn't anything new.
It quite literally blows my fucking mind that all of a sudden male workers are aware of this...
Did it really take #metoo for men to be aware that they should treat women as equals in the workplace?
It isn't a matter of men not being aware that sexual harassment isn't tolerated. It is the fact that the very definition of harassment is expanded, that the mere accusation of impropriety destroys the man's career, and that there is no such thing as due process. As well, third wave feminism is trying to do twqo opposite things. They demand a woman who is simultaneously strong as the toughest man on earth, while being so weak that a wink at her causes her irreparable harm. #metoo as well, demands that sexual harassment can be determined for things like consensual acts like going on a date with a man, and if you didn't have a good time, even if he never did anything that you did not give explicit permission, your not enjoying yourself is an adequate reason to destroy him.
And that is the problem. Harvey Weinstein is obvious, and he should be relieved of his balls in public with a meat cleaver. The problem is normal interactions between normal men and woman have been turned into harassment and sexual assault. If she feels like it. And she won't be questioned.
Look, do a little research - a lot of women have noted that #metoo has created a real problem - for women.
And the real win for women is that by men pulling way back and only interactiing with women if there is a clear and present work related item, and refusing to be in a room alone with a woman, and not sharing taxis with a co-worker who is female - this is accomplishing the goal of women, which is not to be harassed at work. Yes, it would be really nice to have more normal and friendly interactions, but having half of the workplace under threat of career destruction with a simple accusation and no proof needed is not the best way to get the group that you can destroy be BFF's of the group that wields that power.
Hey Ol Olsoc, you said your assessment of your own behaviour was "risky". That's your assessment, not mine
You have simply detached yourself from reality. A risk/reward assessment is a balancing act. you weigh the possible rewards against the possible risks. Somewhere along the line, you have decided to interpret that as "I want to harass women, but the laws make that a bad idea. That is not even wrong.
It's why I pay ice Hockey, but don't go wingsuit flying.
Ice Hockey has a high risk of injury and is expensive to play.. But it has a lot of camaraderie with team mates, is incredible cardio exercise and weight control, and is a lot of fun. Sounds good - sign me up!
Wingsuit flying has a high risk of death,and is extremely expensive. The adrenaline rush must be incredible though. So, I think I'll pass on that activity.
I don't play hockey because I want to be injured and lay out a lot of money. I play it for the rewards. The rewards outweigh the risks
In similar fashion, I avoid wingsuit flying because although the reward is good- a good adrenaline rush beats hell out of any drug - but the risks are large, and life ending.
And here's the thing about risk/reward assessments - they can be different for each individual.
So we come to the risk/reward for unnecessary workplace interactions with the opposite sex.
The risks. You can have your career ended with no other than an accusation. You can end up having your wife leave you. You are having to work with a subset of people that you must be very guarded in case you say or do the wrong thing.As an example of the extremes of what damages a woman, Winking at a woman is considered sexual harassment today, so interactions must be very guarded.
The plus side is that it is nice to have friends. It would be nice to include women in my career networking.
So yes, my risk/reward assessment tells me that although it is enjoyable to have friends at work, the results of an unfortunate interaction with a person who sees every interaction as somehow sexually charged and makes for career suicide simply tells me that I don't want to take that risk.
Now for me that is easy anyhow. I'm driven and quite immersed in what I am doing. My career is more important to me than any personal interaction with anyone. Male or female.
So you can do as you wish. Everyone does their own risk/reward analysis and makes their decisions - with perhaps the exception being that subset of humanity with poor impulse control.
You do realise this story in your head about what this woman does is not based on your real life interactions with her and you have constructed it largely to have consistent feelings about a political topic that you don't actually know anything about, i hope.
You realize that you just made the If ?I don't personally experience it, it doesn't exist"?
It said he couldn't shut off the individual pump. I'm sure there's a massive kill switch of doom (due to nanny-state commie stuff) that shuts off the entire station, but for some reason he didn't want to use it. Worried about getting in trouble over lost sales?
Here in the wilds of Pennsylvania, there is an emergency shut off at the pumps that brings the whole show to a halt. Helps prevent really big deflagrations
Maybe. Or maybe the guy might have performed a simple risk/reward analysis.
I was fine acting really crappy, but now it's risky so I'm being more careful.
Hey Serviscope minor, this is the second thinly veiled accusation you have made that I am harassing women. Homie does not play that game. If you want an intelligent conversation, that is cool - but you are using the tactics of the people who get fired for being sexist bigots.
Sorry, no - I don't "act really crappy" toward women. I tend to be very reserved with women I do not know very well, because I don't want to upset them. I want to get some idea of their personality first. I have some lady friends who are reserved, and a couple who have incredibly filthy minds. So I eventually tailor my interactions to the lady I am interacting with. But that is hardly treating them crappy.
Certainly sounded like mansplaining to me. Maybe those predisposed to metoo and gamergate conspiracies that the entire world is hating on men might see it differently. But some men like to be the victim.
A new movement among feminists is #mentorher, where men are told they need to "lean in" and mentor women. But how can the guy do that if his mentoring is mansplaining? https://leanin.org/mentor-her
But she was responding to someone who seemed like a woman hating asshat who wants women to stop gaming and leave it to real men instead.
Seemed like? What does that mean?
Here is the problem. It is glaringly obvious that she is a feminist and a misandryst. You don't use hate filled terms like "mansplaining" and the other stuff she wrote without being the other side of the coin - a male hating asshat.
But there is a way out of the dillemma. In any professional situation, I insist on acting in a professional manner. She was representing this company by her statements - whether or not it was on her Twitter account or not. So when this guy wrote to her, a simple "Thanks for the input, I'll take that under advisement." statement would have been sufficient.
While I didn't see any "woman hating asshat" in his post. She opted to take it there.
In life as well as on the internet, you can piss off your enemies much better by ignoring them, taking them down tactfully, and my favorite, using logic and the truth and wits to destroy them, but then leaving them an out. Not many understand the joy of treating your defeated enemy mercifully, but they know it when they see it. Utter humiliation.
Or of course, getting into a public display of misandry while claiming representation of your company and getting fired for it might really show people. She was playing the sex card the whole way out the door.
But civil interaction? Nah - that won't work at all.
You know, people made fun of Mike Pence for his rules about women, but they make total sense, in the same way that a lot of pro athletes now have some members of their entourage present whenever they bang some random chick - you absolutely avoid the "he said, she said" realm. If I were in a public position, I'd do the same thing.
I think Mike Pence is a first class asshole, but his concept of avoiding any hint of impropriety is one smart thing that he does.
There is a certain amount of irony that #metoo came out not too long after all of the ridicule, proving his actions to be wisdom.
Taking advice and turning it into "mansplaining" (did she just assume his gender?) is the mark of a misandryc bigot. If a male told a woman he didn't need to listen to her because "she's only a woman" would have a mob at his front door after being Doxxed
And now she apparently has the same, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing except that people like overreacting.
The point is that unless we are going to have some sort of magic mind where women are the exact equal of men, yet are not held accountable for what they say and do, we are reaching a point where mansplaining and other derogatory sexist statements from women are going to be treated like the misandry that they are. It is just awkward, to be the victim all of the time, even when you as the victim spout your hatred of males while demanding that if a male disagrees with you, he is a misogynist. That isn't equality, that is demanding untouchable superiority. Is untouchable superiority what you demand for women?
Well I ain't seen that and I've not modified my behaviour.
Well then, I suppose that settles the matter, amirite?
Maybe if you felt you had to then your behaviour was problematic in the first place.
Maybe. Or maybe the guy might have performed a simple risk/reward analysis.
This isn't rocket surgery. There are plenty enough examples of false harassment and false rape claims. While they are not a large number percentage-wise, they exist. if there is no particular upside to male-female interaction, a prudent man what values his career is going to focus on his career, not whatever benefit there might be in unnecessary interactions at work.
It is glaringly obvious that this woman had a rather low threshold for going ballistic. Just sayin' But we are digressing
Saying "a sex issue" is a mighty strange way pf phrasing it.
What is a better phrase? Takin to the patriarchy? Putting men in their place? Drinking male tears? Exposing mansplaining?
And apparently she was well know for it and the company knew and it came up in the interview:
I warned people in my interview that I was loud about these issues on social media and had no intention of shutting up, she told Kotaku of when she first got hired at ArenaNet. They reassured me that they admired [my] willingness to speak truth to power.
This is a fine example of the Mike Tyson defense, where you claim that since people know how you "are" their understanding that leaves you always guilt-free. That since they know that, they are perhaps the guilty party. https://www.indianapolismonthl...
Um, it didn't work with Mike Tyson, and it didn't work with her. And she wasn't speaking truth to power either, just being rude and jumping at the change to play the sex/gender card. And that's a card trick everyone has seen played too often. It isn't a win every argument card any more, even if it was at one time
There is nothing wrong with a woman taking down some asshole who is acting like an asshole. But if she is going to act like an asshole acts in the attempt, there isn't much difference between her and him, unless you always give women a free pass, as if women have no control over what they say and do. Which seems kinda like a prejudice based on a person's sex and is rather demeaning to women.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean Kim Kardashian will no longer be the most popular woman in the world?
Wtf is "Kim Kardashian"? (paraphrasing Ozzie)
Seriously, the rest of the world doesn't know or care about a US reality TV starlet.
Well first off, you do know that there are "services" that people like Kim or anyone for that matter - can purchase to have fake accounts created to follow them, don't you? Those are probably a big part of this culling.
Second, you do appear to know who the diva is.
Third - Here's your whoosh!
Does this mean Kim Kardashian will no longer be the most popular woman in the world?
. Or what's your explanation for the number of inbred tinfoil-hatters who believe sites like Infowars?
Consumption of their own poop as a child.
We're in 2018. What classic Mac OS software do you still need to run? And if you absolutely need to, nothing is preventing you from running it inside a VM.
Final Cut Studio suite. Apple's sound suite. As well, I much prefer a Unix environment. .
As for running a VM on Windows, there is no way I'm trading a 100 percent uptime machine to run brittle Windows ten - and put up with all of the regular failures it has?
Interesting enough, I do run Windows 7 in Bootcamp on my personal Mac. It works pretty well. Not a VM of course, but pretty much the opposite of what you suggest.
What I absolutely need - and this is the most important part - I need my machine to boot up, run it's software correctly, and make my schedule. Not spend a couple hours every so often troubleshooting and replacing drivers that Microsoft decided I need.
I work on Windows machines. I do work on my Macs.
No, because Google has been acquiring companies for products since 2001. Their claim is this is something new when it is not.
Innovation and acquisition are not mutually exclusive
Well to be fair, given the frequency in which many self-described "male feminists" end up being accused or convicted of rape or sexual assault, those feminists' preconceived notions of them in particular are not entirely unjustified.
You are correct. There was a Youtube video I watched nce that reeled of name after name of male feminists who were convicted of sexcrime against women.
I suspect that it is a form of projection, similar to how many conservatives rail on about homosexuality, only to be caught having sex with another guy. Being a "feminist" in order to get close to and get easy interaction with women.
Then you shouldn't confuse obtuse with humor either.
Obtuse can be humor, Coward
Don't be obtuse. AC's point was easy to grok.
Don't confuse homor with obtuse. Here's your Whoosh!
They don't innovate anymore. They wait for someone to innovate and then either buy them or, if that fails, throw a shitload of money into a competing product to muscle them out of the business.
And that's new how?
Android? Bought.
Kinda like what Opportunist wrote, eh?
Since when did an upcoming announcement become news?
Wait until they announce something.
At least when Steve Jobs was around there was some excitement about upcoming news events as something innovative might be announced, but no-one cares about minor hardware upgrades.
Yeah, those were the days, when Steve Jobs introduced new Windows products......
apple needs to step up.
Mac os is better then windows 10 ways but the hardware sucks and it very out of date with the same old pricing.
I dunno - I don't mind the iMac Pro too much. But if that sucks - what are you running?
But she was responding to someone who seemed like a woman hating asshat who wants women to stop gaming and leave it to real men instead.
I didn't see that at all. Please read what kicked off this mess. I'll quote it exactly.
.
This. Its a big mean world, and if she cannot abide anyone disagreeing with her, she is simply not qualified to be in a workplace. If a man disagrees with you civilly - and he did - and your response is to go full potato with a string of hatred directed at men, and not his civil discussion, then no - you shouldn't be allowed to work in a career that has any interfacing with the public. It is painfully obvious that given her white hot hatred of males of the species - and after all, did he display misogyny in his post - no he didn't - then it is her who has a problem, one shared by those in here who defend her.
Actually, I think there is. As it is now, HBO is *giving* all that market away to .. shall we say, grey market sites, (at best.) If HBO dedicated some time and effort to capturing those eyeballs for themselves, there might well be many opportunities to monitize it that are being overlooked.
But I expect AT&T to just FUBAR it anyhow.
Getting ready to drop HBO in 3..2..
And the crowd goes mild.
That neither contradicts what he wrote nor adds anything to it.
U mad bro?
But here's the problem at the company level. #metoo has men being very careful about any and all interactions with women in the workplace.
You know, this line of thinking really surprises me. Hugely it does. Why?
Well, anyone who works in the corporate world for, oh, the last 10-20 years knows that sexist behavior towards women isn't tolerated. This isn't anything new.
It quite literally blows my fucking mind that all of a sudden male workers are aware of this...
Did it really take #metoo for men to be aware that they should treat women as equals in the workplace?
It isn't a matter of men not being aware that sexual harassment isn't tolerated. It is the fact that the very definition of harassment is expanded, that the mere accusation of impropriety destroys the man's career, and that there is no such thing as due process. As well, third wave feminism is trying to do twqo opposite things. They demand a woman who is simultaneously strong as the toughest man on earth, while being so weak that a wink at her causes her irreparable harm. #metoo as well, demands that sexual harassment can be determined for things like consensual acts like going on a date with a man, and if you didn't have a good time, even if he never did anything that you did not give explicit permission, your not enjoying yourself is an adequate reason to destroy him.
And that is the problem. Harvey Weinstein is obvious, and he should be relieved of his balls in public with a meat cleaver. The problem is normal interactions between normal men and woman have been turned into harassment and sexual assault. If she feels like it. And she won't be questioned.
Look, do a little research - a lot of women have noted that #metoo has created a real problem - for women.
And the real win for women is that by men pulling way back and only interactiing with women if there is a clear and present work related item, and refusing to be in a room alone with a woman, and not sharing taxis with a co-worker who is female - this is accomplishing the goal of women, which is not to be harassed at work. Yes, it would be really nice to have more normal and friendly interactions, but having half of the workplace under threat of career destruction with a simple accusation and no proof needed is not the best way to get the group that you can destroy be BFF's of the group that wields that power.
White Knights gonna White Knight.
I wonder if the White Knights know what feminists think of them?
Hey Ol Olsoc, you said your assessment of your own behaviour was "risky". That's your assessment, not mine
You have simply detached yourself from reality. A risk/reward assessment is a balancing act. you weigh the possible rewards against the possible risks. Somewhere along the line, you have decided to interpret that as "I want to harass women, but the laws make that a bad idea. That is not even wrong.
It's why I pay ice Hockey, but don't go wingsuit flying.
Ice Hockey has a high risk of injury and is expensive to play.. But it has a lot of camaraderie with team mates, is incredible cardio exercise and weight control, and is a lot of fun. Sounds good - sign me up!
Wingsuit flying has a high risk of death,and is extremely expensive. The adrenaline rush must be incredible though. So, I think I'll pass on that activity.
I don't play hockey because I want to be injured and lay out a lot of money. I play it for the rewards. The rewards outweigh the risks
In similar fashion, I avoid wingsuit flying because although the reward is good- a good adrenaline rush beats hell out of any drug - but the risks are large, and life ending.
And here's the thing about risk/reward assessments - they can be different for each individual.
So we come to the risk/reward for unnecessary workplace interactions with the opposite sex.
The risks. You can have your career ended with no other than an accusation. You can end up having your wife leave you. You are having to work with a subset of people that you must be very guarded in case you say or do the wrong thing.As an example of the extremes of what damages a woman, Winking at a woman is considered sexual harassment today, so interactions must be very guarded.
The plus side is that it is nice to have friends. It would be nice to include women in my career networking.
So yes, my risk/reward assessment tells me that although it is enjoyable to have friends at work, the results of an unfortunate interaction with a person who sees every interaction as somehow sexually charged and makes for career suicide simply tells me that I don't want to take that risk.
Now for me that is easy anyhow. I'm driven and quite immersed in what I am doing. My career is more important to me than any personal interaction with anyone. Male or female.
So you can do as you wish. Everyone does their own risk/reward analysis and makes their decisions - with perhaps the exception being that subset of humanity with poor impulse control.
You do realise this story in your head about what this woman does is not based on your real life interactions with her and you have constructed it largely to have consistent feelings about a political topic that you don't actually know anything about, i hope.
You realize that you just made the If ?I don't personally experience it, it doesn't exist"?
Otherwise, much gobbledygook you spout.
It said he couldn't shut off the individual pump. I'm sure there's a massive kill switch of doom (due to nanny-state commie stuff) that shuts off the entire station, but for some reason he didn't want to use it. Worried about getting in trouble over lost sales?
Here in the wilds of Pennsylvania, there is an emergency shut off at the pumps that brings the whole show to a halt. Helps prevent really big deflagrations
Maybe. Or maybe the guy might have performed a simple risk/reward analysis.
I was fine acting really crappy, but now it's risky so I'm being more careful.
Hey Serviscope minor, this is the second thinly veiled accusation you have made that I am harassing women. Homie does not play that game. If you want an intelligent conversation, that is cool - but you are using the tactics of the people who get fired for being sexist bigots.
Sorry, no - I don't "act really crappy" toward women. I tend to be very reserved with women I do not know very well, because I don't want to upset them. I want to get some idea of their personality first. I have some lady friends who are reserved, and a couple who have incredibly filthy minds. So I eventually tailor my interactions to the lady I am interacting with. But that is hardly treating them crappy.
Certainly sounded like mansplaining to me. Maybe those predisposed to metoo and gamergate conspiracies that the entire world is hating on men might see it differently. But some men like to be the victim.
A new movement among feminists is #mentorher, where men are told they need to "lean in" and mentor women. But how can the guy do that if his mentoring is mansplaining? https://leanin.org/mentor-her
Pretty damn complicated if you ask me.
But she was responding to someone who seemed like a woman hating asshat who wants women to stop gaming and leave it to real men instead.
Seemed like? What does that mean?
Here is the problem. It is glaringly obvious that she is a feminist and a misandryst. You don't use hate filled terms like "mansplaining" and the other stuff she wrote without being the other side of the coin - a male hating asshat.
But there is a way out of the dillemma. In any professional situation, I insist on acting in a professional manner. She was representing this company by her statements - whether or not it was on her Twitter account or not. So when this guy wrote to her, a simple "Thanks for the input, I'll take that under advisement." statement would have been sufficient.
While I didn't see any "woman hating asshat" in his post. She opted to take it there.
In life as well as on the internet, you can piss off your enemies much better by ignoring them, taking them down tactfully, and my favorite, using logic and the truth and wits to destroy them, but then leaving them an out. Not many understand the joy of treating your defeated enemy mercifully, but they know it when they see it. Utter humiliation.
Or of course, getting into a public display of misandry while claiming representation of your company and getting fired for it might really show people. She was playing the sex card the whole way out the door.
But civil interaction? Nah - that won't work at all.
You know, people made fun of Mike Pence for his rules about women, but they make total sense, in the same way that a lot of pro athletes now have some members of their entourage present whenever they bang some random chick - you absolutely avoid the "he said, she said" realm. If I were in a public position, I'd do the same thing.
I think Mike Pence is a first class asshole, but his concept of avoiding any hint of impropriety is one smart thing that he does.
There is a certain amount of irony that #metoo came out not too long after all of the ridicule, proving his actions to be wisdom.
Taking advice and turning it into "mansplaining" (did she just assume his gender?) is the mark of a misandryc bigot. If a male told a woman he didn't need to listen to her because "she's only a woman" would have a mob at his front door after being Doxxed
And now she apparently has the same, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing except that people like overreacting.
The point is that unless we are going to have some sort of magic mind where women are the exact equal of men, yet are not held accountable for what they say and do, we are reaching a point where mansplaining and other derogatory sexist statements from women are going to be treated like the misandry that they are. It is just awkward, to be the victim all of the time, even when you as the victim spout your hatred of males while demanding that if a male disagrees with you, he is a misogynist. That isn't equality, that is demanding untouchable superiority. Is untouchable superiority what you demand for women?
Well I ain't seen that and I've not modified my behaviour.
Well then, I suppose that settles the matter, amirite?
Maybe if you felt you had to then your behaviour was problematic in the first place.
Maybe. Or maybe the guy might have performed a simple risk/reward analysis.
This isn't rocket surgery. There are plenty enough examples of false harassment and false rape claims. While they are not a large number percentage-wise, they exist. if there is no particular upside to male-female interaction, a prudent man what values his career is going to focus on his career, not whatever benefit there might be in unnecessary interactions at work.
It is glaringly obvious that this woman had a rather low threshold for going ballistic. Just sayin' But we are digressing
Saying "a sex issue" is a mighty strange way pf phrasing it.
What is a better phrase? Takin to the patriarchy? Putting men in their place? Drinking male tears? Exposing mansplaining?
And apparently she was well know for it and the company knew and it came up in the interview:
This is a fine example of the Mike Tyson defense, where you claim that since people know how you "are" their understanding that leaves you always guilt-free. That since they know that, they are perhaps the guilty party. https://www.indianapolismonthl...
Um, it didn't work with Mike Tyson, and it didn't work with her. And she wasn't speaking truth to power either, just being rude and jumping at the change to play the sex/gender card. And that's a card trick everyone has seen played too often. It isn't a win every argument card any more, even if it was at one time
There is nothing wrong with a woman taking down some asshole who is acting like an asshole. But if she is going to act like an asshole acts in the attempt, there isn't much difference between her and him, unless you always give women a free pass, as if women have no control over what they say and do. Which seems kinda like a prejudice based on a person's sex and is rather demeaning to women.