You know, I think it's pretty fucking hysterical that 'social justice warrior' has become a perjorative. Yes, fighting for social justice is the WORST THING EVAH!
In fairness, much of the chagrin towards people who self-label themselves in such a manner is a result of their apparently contradictory behavior.
Consider that many people here consider "Christian" to be a perjorative, even though the classical meaning of the term implies a person who lives by the teachings of a man once known as the Prince of Peace.
What I am saying is that the world is controlled right now by politically correct, professionally offended people. Everything everywhere is a stereotype.
You do realize that "politically correct, professionally offended people" is a stereotype, right?
Actually it's not, because it's not "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."
Now, claiming that the people who control the world are all members of the aforementioned group? That is stereotyping.
You are right, there is no excuse for threats of violence. That being said, she is is absolutely trying to insult men. The video I watched had her saying that commercials that show fathers playing with their sons, and father son road trips are wrong. She also says that testosterone and facial hair are negative traits. Basically the video I watched was 13 minutes of man hate.
And yes, if you get off on looking at mutilated, naked, dead women, I'm judging you to be unsuited to belong in civilized society.
Unless, apparently, that society is Japanese. Those cats are into some seriously weird porn, a lot of which qualifies for what you refer as material that only an insane, irrational sociopath would enjoy. Aside tentacle porn (never seen it, but know it's a big part of their culture), but I remember a manga called Crying Freeman that had one or two rather graphic depictions of brutal rape/murders.
Personally, I found those scenes disturbing, yet I don't consider the Japanese insane sociopaths. A little twisted, maybe, but not insane.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
Geez dude, I had the impression you were a bit anti-social, but this takes the cake.
I'm not "anti-social."
I'm also not an idiot.
I'm a person who's made the mistake of trusting strangers before, and gotten burned for it.
Do you trust me? Why should you?
That's one of the saddest things I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Then you haven't been a member for long enough (or you're hyperbolizing based on your subjective beliefs). Give it time.
Why not trust people until they've given you a reason not to trust them.
Because people are inherently greedy, competitive creatures. When society is built upon the concept that one cannot succeed if another person does, it's only natural for those aware of the construct to be wary of the motivations of others.
Ever played Rust? There's a valid allegory there.
Your way is likely to get a negative reaction from people, and thusly lead you to not trust people further.
That's not been my experience - just because I don't trust you doesn't mean I'm going to be an asshole about it, or even let you know I feel that way.
But I'm also not going to hand you the keys to my truck. Because only an idiot would do that.
1. No, it's not, given that rather extraordinary evidence that people have harassed and threatened her already.
What's so extraordinary about it? Other than the fact that a number of people are finding the image extraordinarily dubious?
2. No, how can it possibly be sexism to attack obviously sexist people of unknown gender for posting obviously stupid shit
But it can be sexism to automatically assume the plaintiff in this case is being 100% honest with us, despite her past indiscretions, purely because she is a she.
3. Still no.
Childish.
4. And yet... you trust that these ACs are acting in good faith.
Of course not - what I'm doing is pointing out that you are choosing to trust one actor in this, despite the fact that said actor has been known to lie in the past, and as a result are automatically demonizing anyone who disagrees with you.
Actually, nevermind on that last one - it's not a result of your stance so much a result of your personality.
Nope, sorry, your own proven history with being a tremendous hypocrite to me personally raises my suspicions that you're being tremendously intellectually dishonest here.
Yea, that personality - the one that assumes it's own infallibility while simultaneously launching unjustified attacks on anyone who dares have the audacity to contradict your godly beliefs.
- Camageddon (the first one, or the High Octane re-release, which the Android version is based on) - Final Fantasy VII - Kirby - Nethack - Crazy Taxi (way more fun than it should be!) - Die Hard: Arcade - Time Crisis II - Mortal Kombat II - Street Fighter II - Tony Hawk Pro Skater II (for the soundtrack as much as the gameplay) - Battletoads - BattleTech - Command and Conquer (original) - Frogger (original) - Spyro the Dragon (original) - Breakout
Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying? Or rather, to attack the people who speculate that she may be?
Judging from the general responses received by the "might not be true" camp, I'd have to say "yes" to my original quandary.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
What? Even accepting your definition of 'tool'; Communism is a tool to move the ownership of the means of production from one group of oligarchs to another.
OK, that was a bad example, I didn't really mean to use an example where the car literally causes the death.. but what about emergencies where a collision IS imminent? A computer can react faster than a human, so if a collision is absolutely unavoidable wouldn't you want the car(s) involved to employ some strategy which seeks to minimize injury by using whatever degree of control remains?
Well, if one of them is my car, I want it to minimize injury to me. Presumably, the vast majority of other drivers feel the same way - self-preservation is pretty instinctual.
As for liability, a collision-mitigation system manufacturer would be no more liable for injuries sustained than an airbag manufacturer.
Except an airbag doesn't make a decision to sacrifice Person A for the sake of Person B. Comparing dumb systems to intelligent ones is like comparing apples to tree trunks - they're both plant parts, but the similarities end there.
It'd be funny if a bearded man in white robes showed up in the sky and said "Wait! Before you turn if off I want to take a picture of Norway for posterity!"
"Pity. That was one of mine. Won an award, you know. Lovely crinkly edges."
Well when I took my driving class (way back in the 80's), it was called an emergency brake and we were showed the proper way to use it in an emergency: frantically applying/releasing at a fast rate
The person who taught that class - they weren't a mechanic, were they?
Well, as a trained mechanic, I can assure you that A) it is not an emergency brake, as well as B) using it in such a manner sounds like a great way to break your brakes.
IF you insist on using your parking brake as an emergency brake, the safest method would be to slowly apply increasing pressure to the handle/pedal, as you would with your hydraulic brakes, coupled with engine braking, to gradually slow the vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
Because posting under a 'nym is equivalent to posting as AC?
Considering that "AC" is a pseudonym in itself, I'd say yes, yes it is.
Contrary to the typical libertarian viewpoint not all opinions matter or are worth considering.
The "libertarian viewpoint" isn't that every opinion is worth considering, it's that every opinion has an equal right to be heard.
And really, that's not a "libertarian viewpoint" so much as "the spirit of the 1st Amendment."
Quite obviously they were asking for proof of your claim,
Maybe the fact that there have been tens of thousands of threats(of admittedly varying degrees) made against her in less private venues
But yea, pretend to be dense, that'll sway people's opinions for sure.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
And your comment about censorship is correct. Anita practices it, instead of allowing comments on her videos she denies them.
Censorship is practiced only by governments. What she is doing is called "moderation",
A duck is a duck, regardless of whether you choose to call it a fowl or a mallard.
You know, I think it's pretty fucking hysterical that 'social justice warrior' has become a perjorative. Yes, fighting for social justice is the WORST THING EVAH!
In fairness, much of the chagrin towards people who self-label themselves in such a manner is a result of their apparently contradictory behavior.
Consider that many people here consider "Christian" to be a perjorative, even though the classical meaning of the term implies a person who lives by the teachings of a man once known as the Prince of Peace.
Same shit, different flies.
What I am saying is that the world is controlled right now by politically correct, professionally offended people. Everything everywhere is a stereotype.
You do realize that "politically correct, professionally offended people" is a stereotype, right?
Actually it's not, because it's not "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."
Now, claiming that the people who control the world are all members of the aforementioned group? That is stereotyping.
You are right, there is no excuse for threats of violence. That being said, she is is absolutely trying to insult men. The video I watched had her saying that commercials that show fathers playing with their sons, and father son road trips are wrong. She also says that testosterone and facial hair are negative traits. Basically the video I watched was 13 minutes of man hate.
Link, perchance? Please and thank you.
Dreamworks, too - plenty of strong female protagonists in How to Train Your Dragon.
Watch your mouth, or I shall crush you with the power of my MIND
And yes, if you get off on looking at mutilated, naked, dead women, I'm judging you to be unsuited to belong in civilized society.
Unless, apparently, that society is Japanese. Those cats are into some seriously weird porn, a lot of which qualifies for what you refer as material that only an insane, irrational sociopath would enjoy. Aside tentacle porn (never seen it, but know it's a big part of their culture), but I remember a manga called Crying Freeman that had one or two rather graphic depictions of brutal rape/murders.
Personally, I found those scenes disturbing, yet I don't consider the Japanese insane sociopaths. A little twisted, maybe, but not insane.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
Geez dude, I had the impression you were a bit anti-social, but this takes the cake.
I'm not "anti-social."
I'm also not an idiot.
I'm a person who's made the mistake of trusting strangers before, and gotten burned for it.
Do you trust me? Why should you?
That's one of the saddest things I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Then you haven't been a member for long enough (or you're hyperbolizing based on your subjective beliefs). Give it time.
Why not trust people until they've given you a reason not to trust them.
Because people are inherently greedy, competitive creatures. When society is built upon the concept that one cannot succeed if another person does, it's only natural for those aware of the construct to be wary of the motivations of others.
Ever played Rust? There's a valid allegory there.
Your way is likely to get a negative reaction from people, and thusly lead you to not trust people further.
That's not been my experience - just because I don't trust you doesn't mean I'm going to be an asshole about it, or even let you know I feel that way.
But I'm also not going to hand you the keys to my truck. Because only an idiot would do that.
It always means something, if only philosophically.
I see you took the $5 logic class instead of the $10 one...
Um... OK... That makes about as much sense as tits on a bull gator.
1. No, it's not, given that rather extraordinary evidence that people have harassed and threatened her already.
What's so extraordinary about it? Other than the fact that a number of people are finding the image extraordinarily dubious?
2. No, how can it possibly be sexism to attack obviously sexist people of unknown gender for posting obviously stupid shit
But it can be sexism to automatically assume the plaintiff in this case is being 100% honest with us, despite her past indiscretions, purely because she is a she.
3. Still no.
Childish.
4. And yet... you trust that these ACs are acting in good faith.
Of course not - what I'm doing is pointing out that you are choosing to trust one actor in this, despite the fact that said actor has been known to lie in the past, and as a result are automatically demonizing anyone who disagrees with you.
Actually, nevermind on that last one - it's not a result of your stance so much a result of your personality.
Nope, sorry, your own proven history with being a tremendous hypocrite to me personally raises my suspicions that you're being tremendously intellectually dishonest here.
Yea, that personality - the one that assumes it's own infallibility while simultaneously launching unjustified attacks on anyone who dares have the audacity to contradict your godly beliefs.
Non-computerized:
- Shit-tonne of old school Magic: The Gathering cards (pre-Urza)
- Chess board
- Deck of playing cards
- handful of 6-sided die
My Essential (old-school) Games:
- Camageddon (the first one, or the High Octane re-release, which the Android version is based on)
- Final Fantasy VII
- Kirby
- Nethack
- Crazy Taxi (way more fun than it should be!)
- Die Hard: Arcade
- Time Crisis II
- Mortal Kombat II
- Street Fighter II
- Tony Hawk Pro Skater II (for the soundtrack as much as the gameplay)
- Battletoads
- BattleTech
- Command and Conquer (original)
- Frogger (original)
- Spyro the Dragon (original)
- Breakout
The amount of actual evidence out there that Sarkeesian has been willing to lie about threats is zero
Please present it. I don't think you can.
How is someone supposed to present evidence of no evidence?
By providing evidence of the counterclaim.
Evidence that indicates a true claim of aggravated harassment does not preclude the simultaneous existence of false claims of the same.
True, that. In fact, upon further consideration of the evidence presented, I find its veracity questionable myself.
Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying? Or rather, to attack the people who speculate that she may be?
Judging from the general responses received by the "might not be true" camp, I'd have to say "yes" to my original quandary.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
Because, save a particular handful of people, human beings have proven themselves wholly untrustworthy to me.
Why do you have to qualify it with gender? Can't a person just not trust anyone by default without being accused of racism, or misogyny, etc?
The amount of actual evidence out there that Sarkeesian has been willing to lie about threats is zero
Please present it. I don't think you can.
How is someone supposed to present evidence of no evidence?
By providing evidence of the counterclaim.
As for evidence of the threats, here's a post she made on twitter highlighting an example of a specific threat
Yea, like that.
I'm pretty sure it's a civil one, then again, IANAL.
Obviously, if you don't see how threatening to commit a capital crime can be a capital crime in itself.
What? Even accepting your definition of 'tool'; Communism is a tool to move the ownership of the means of production from one group of oligarchs to another.
In practice, yes, but not in spirit.
OK, that was a bad example, I didn't really mean to use an example where the car literally causes the death.. but what about emergencies where a collision IS imminent? A computer can react faster than a human, so if a collision is absolutely unavoidable wouldn't you want the car(s) involved to employ some strategy which seeks to minimize injury by using whatever degree of control remains?
Well, if one of them is my car, I want it to minimize injury to me. Presumably, the vast majority of other drivers feel the same way - self-preservation is pretty instinctual.
As for liability, a collision-mitigation system manufacturer would be no more liable for injuries sustained than an airbag manufacturer.
Except an airbag doesn't make a decision to sacrifice Person A for the sake of Person B. Comparing dumb systems to intelligent ones is like comparing apples to tree trunks - they're both plant parts, but the similarities end there.
It'd be funny if a bearded man in white robes showed up in the sky and said "Wait! Before you turn if off I want to take a picture of Norway for posterity!"
"Pity. That was one of mine. Won an award, you know. Lovely crinkly edges."
Well when I took my driving class (way back in the 80's), it was called an emergency brake and we were showed the proper way to use it in an emergency: frantically applying/releasing at a fast rate
The person who taught that class - they weren't a mechanic, were they?
Well, as a trained mechanic, I can assure you that A) it is not an emergency brake, as well as B) using it in such a manner sounds like a great way to break your brakes.
IF you insist on using your parking brake as an emergency brake, the safest method would be to slowly apply increasing pressure to the handle/pedal, as you would with your hydraulic brakes, coupled with engine braking, to gradually slow the vehicle.