No, it's the feminists (and other sjw leftist types) who "make the personal, political." It's part of their SOP. They target communities with sway over the culture as a whole and inject their RNA. If it's accepted, those who give an inch are expected to give a mile. If they don't, they're outcast as bigots and a cultural takeover is attempted (atheism+ comes to mind). If the infection is rejected resoundingly, we get things like gamergate. It's a nice healthy immune response to bullshit. If feminists want their own brand of politics in games, they should make their own instead of being entitled brats demanding that others put that shit into their games. You know why they don't? They know it won't sell well, for the same reasons "Wally Bear and the 'no' gang" didn't sell well. People don't like preachy authoritarian shit in their games unless it comes from antagonist characters they're supposed to battle.
Whatever feminism was in the 60s, it isn't that today. Whatever 'misguided' definition you may think is in play now is the dominant one effecting change. The proof is the laws they push, the 'activism' footage of their behavior on video sites, and the shaming anti-male propaganda they shove through the mainstream media. Feminist claims don't even jive with really basic reality checks. If 1 in 5 women were raped in a given year, even a 12% report rate would have police departments in major cities overloaded with thousands of cases..every day. That's just not the case. College campus in america is probably one of the safest places to be, considering the number of people per unit volume.
The intellectual dishonesty started with the anita types and their incestuous 'journalist' friends at gawker. "Listen and believe (a woman when she says she was $whatever)" does not fly with me, sorry. If someone is assaulted they should call the police, not blab about it on social media to create an attention storm. This applies to both sexes.
I have a better idea. How about we take both the theists and 'progressive' trash like yourself and put you all on an island with sticks and stones so that you can beat the shit out of each other until it is learned that names don't really hurt after all.
Like feminists, developmentally and emotionally stunted people typically resort to ad hominems instead of facts and reason to make arguments. What does that make you? What does that make them?
Actually, the older engineers created the internet to share information so that they might learn as much about truth as possible. Guess that didn't work out so well.
Actually, what gamergate is doing is criticizing several women's elaborate conspiracy theories about gaming and gamer culture. If you're going to compare, do it on like terms. Sarkeesian did the same thing, though I think she's smart enough to have done it purposely. She had a ton of tards give her 160k in 'sympathy' money to make a few youtube videos. Not bad. She probably thinks people like you are useful idiots.
Maybe some of these women are self (or having others) posting fake threats, or they are troll posts. Who knows. What really matters is that these women are purposely taking these 'threats' seriously to drum up drama.
I find it interesting that if it was men who were pulling stunts like anita's, they would NOT be getting away with it. Who really has the privilege again?
No, it's a passive aggressive warlock hunt by "SJWs, feminazis and progressives" on gamer communities who refuse to accept the status quo feminist interpretation of reality, in this case in regards to games. Heaven forbid they want games free of preachy propaganda and shaming language. There's a reason no one liked "Wally Bear and the 'No' gang" on NES.
The whole thing started years before zoe quinn rode her first hipster micropenis. Sites like kotaku and polygon always mixed their political shit into their reviews. It was her involvement with the 'journalists' at these gawker sites that triggered the eruption.
It is serious business.. to passive aggressive crybabies like Wu. The rest of us realize that someone out to get someone else is NOT about to announce it to the world on the internet.
Yes, it is just words. Perhaps your parents forgot to teach you the 'sticks and stones' nursery rhyme. Maybe we need to take all the pantywaisted hipster spawn of boomer and gen-x parents and put them into a 5 year bootcamp to toughen them up. Their parents obviously failed.
Actually, people can and do pull firealarms in school all the time. There's a lot of incentive to do so. The point being that the more enticing she makes herself as a 'victim' the more tempting a target she becomes, and the trolls will tailor their responses to the type of situation she claims victimized her. Of course, she knows this, and it's what she wants. Anything for attention.
A sustained COUNTERattack you mean, right? Like anita, she instigated this from the beginning by saying dumb shit about a very large online community. The ad hominem 'victim-blamer' is a shaming term used by the professional victim to shut down criticism of her claims. It isn't an argument for or against anything.
No one knows who 'faked' the message. It could just as easily have come from her or one of her followers.
Stop arguing from the law. That doesn't define reality. The reality is that internet threats are bullshit. People who really want to hurt you are not going to tell you about it.
If you can't take it, dont' dish it. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself. Wu flamed a bunch of people online using her real name and she got shit on for it. Preachy idiots get zero sympathy from me.
..and people like you who equate empathy in someone with the relative level of 'outrage' are reprehensible to me. You refuse to acknowledge real victims and differentiate them from the professional harvesters like wu and sarkeesian who destroy any shot of the genuine victims from being taken seriously.
Your home address is public information. If you don't want it online, then don't use your real name online, preferably at all, or at least not while taking controversial positions. That's what anonymity is for. It's really not that fucking hard.
No, but she did libel a whole shitload of people and then label the criticism she got for it as 'proof' of her victimhood. Shitheads like her deserve all the trolling they get.
trolling is not a credible death threat.. If she truly thought they were real, she wouldn't be blathering about it online because the fbi would've told her to keep quiet about it while they investigated. Like sarkeesian, she's after money.
Wow, so many lamers these days. People need to realize that shit said online is not to be taken seriously. Most of the real motive behind the extreme reactions by authority and so-called 'victims' of this is just retributive power grabbing. Then there are those who were smart enough to use this easily-spun-up dynamic to garner attention and privilege (money eg: anita sarkeesian) by saying stupid, inflammatory shit about a PC subject and then crying victim when they're hit with backlash targeting their sensitive sensibilities. This is hardly complex. Children master this on the playground. Why are adults suddenly taking this seriously? I swear society is regressing to the level of a screaming toddler that isn't getting its way.
In this particular case, crybabies cryin' about rape everywhere will draw relevant 'threats' from people who are looking to troll them back. Wu shouldn't dish it if she can't even comprehend that these threats are as full of shit as her own accusations.. Of course, she probably does know this perfectly well.
She indeed brought it on herself. Generalizing and stereotyping a whole community (incorrectly I might add) and then labeling the criticism she gets as bigotry is about as hypocritical as it gets. If she can't handle the heat, she should stop and eventually people will forget about her. Of course that requires her to lose all that e-attention, and she can't be having that. She is not a victim of anything but her own self serving bullshit.
Using the law to argue morals is fallacious. It is/was also illegal for gays to marry, so I guess they shouldn't marry, right?
The last one depends on what software and how you defined 'faster' and 'better.' A lot of software that ran fine on 7 will not start at all on 8 because of the new dwm, and that is even with ACT shims.
That's pretty subjective. From an American point of view, Europeans only have the choice between socialist, socialist, socialist, and a tiny bit less socialist, with some different locality-driven issues thrown in for each...and before you tell me I know jack about your specific country, it's also likely you know jack about the USA.
The term 'liberal' has been so thoroughly abused at this point that it's meaningless even with a ton of prefixes and suffixes. It used to mean someone who stands for individual liberty, rights, and freedom. Now it stands for someone who wants a big state that tosses out a few scraps of those things for specific kinds of people at the expense of the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
She chose to use her real name online and associate it with contentious bullshit. I did not.
No, it's the feminists (and other sjw leftist types) who "make the personal, political." It's part of their SOP. They target communities with sway over the culture as a whole and inject their RNA. If it's accepted, those who give an inch are expected to give a mile. If they don't, they're outcast as bigots and a cultural takeover is attempted (atheism+ comes to mind). If the infection is rejected resoundingly, we get things like gamergate. It's a nice healthy immune response to bullshit. If feminists want their own brand of politics in games, they should make their own instead of being entitled brats demanding that others put that shit into their games. You know why they don't? They know it won't sell well, for the same reasons "Wally Bear and the 'no' gang" didn't sell well. People don't like preachy authoritarian shit in their games unless it comes from antagonist characters they're supposed to battle.
Whatever feminism was in the 60s, it isn't that today. Whatever 'misguided' definition you may think is in play now is the dominant one effecting change. The proof is the laws they push, the 'activism' footage of their behavior on video sites, and the shaming anti-male propaganda they shove through the mainstream media. Feminist claims don't even jive with really basic reality checks. If 1 in 5 women were raped in a given year, even a 12% report rate would have police departments in major cities overloaded with thousands of cases..every day. That's just not the case. College campus in america is probably one of the safest places to be, considering the number of people per unit volume.
The intellectual dishonesty started with the anita types and their incestuous 'journalist' friends at gawker. "Listen and believe (a woman when she says she was $whatever)" does not fly with me, sorry. If someone is assaulted they should call the police, not blab about it on social media to create an attention storm. This applies to both sexes.
I have a better idea. How about we take both the theists and 'progressive' trash like yourself and put you all on an island with sticks and stones so that you can beat the shit out of each other until it is learned that names don't really hurt after all.
We can put it on hbo.
Like feminists, developmentally and emotionally stunted people typically resort to ad hominems instead of facts and reason to make arguments. What does that make you? What does that make them?
No. It's not a problem. Most gamers don't cry when someone calls them mean things on the internet. SJWs on the other hand...
Wu chose to use her real info when posting contentious shit online. She chose to expose herself. That was stupid It was probably also intentional.
Actually, the older engineers created the internet to share information so that they might learn as much about truth as possible. Guess that didn't work out so well.
Actually, what gamergate is doing is criticizing several women's elaborate conspiracy theories about gaming and gamer culture. If you're going to compare, do it on like terms. Sarkeesian did the same thing, though I think she's smart enough to have done it purposely. She had a ton of tards give her 160k in 'sympathy' money to make a few youtube videos. Not bad. She probably thinks people like you are useful idiots.
Maybe some of these women are self (or having others) posting fake threats, or they are troll posts. Who knows. What really matters is that these women are purposely taking these 'threats' seriously to drum up drama.
I find it interesting that if it was men who were pulling stunts like anita's, they would NOT be getting away with it. Who really has the privilege again?
No, it's a passive aggressive warlock hunt by "SJWs, feminazis and progressives" on gamer communities who refuse to accept the status quo feminist interpretation of reality, in this case in regards to games. Heaven forbid they want games free of preachy propaganda and shaming language. There's a reason no one liked "Wally Bear and the 'No' gang" on NES.
The whole thing started years before zoe quinn rode her first hipster micropenis. Sites like kotaku and polygon always mixed their political shit into their reviews. It was her involvement with the 'journalists' at these gawker sites that triggered the eruption.
and your type loves the ad hominem fallacy. Zero logic or facts required.
It is serious business.. to passive aggressive crybabies like Wu. The rest of us realize that someone out to get someone else is NOT about to announce it to the world on the internet.
Well she could start by apologizing for calling 2/3 of the internet population a bunch of bigots on fallacy ridden grounds.
Yes, it is just words. Perhaps your parents forgot to teach you the 'sticks and stones' nursery rhyme. Maybe we need to take all the pantywaisted hipster spawn of boomer and gen-x parents and put them into a 5 year bootcamp to toughen them up. Their parents obviously failed.
Actually, people can and do pull firealarms in school all the time. There's a lot of incentive to do so. The point being that the more enticing she makes herself as a 'victim' the more tempting a target she becomes, and the trolls will tailor their responses to the type of situation she claims victimized her. Of course, she knows this, and it's what she wants. Anything for attention.
A sustained COUNTERattack you mean, right? Like anita, she instigated this from the beginning by saying dumb shit about a very large online community. The ad hominem 'victim-blamer' is a shaming term used by the professional victim to shut down criticism of her claims. It isn't an argument for or against anything.
No one knows who 'faked' the message. It could just as easily have come from her or one of her followers.
Stop arguing from the law. That doesn't define reality. The reality is that internet threats are bullshit. People who really want to hurt you are not going to tell you about it.
That may be law, but it's not reality, or logical.
I've got a fun fact for you too..
If you can't take it, dont' dish it. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself. Wu flamed a bunch of people online using her real name and she got shit on for it. Preachy idiots get zero sympathy from me.
..and people like you who equate empathy in someone with the relative level of 'outrage' are reprehensible to me. You refuse to acknowledge real victims and differentiate them from the professional harvesters like wu and sarkeesian who destroy any shot of the genuine victims from being taken seriously.
Your home address is public information. If you don't want it online, then don't use your real name online, preferably at all, or at least not while taking controversial positions. That's what anonymity is for. It's really not that fucking hard.
So is/was gay marriage. I guess gays shouldn't marry, eh?
No, but she did libel a whole shitload of people and then label the criticism she got for it as 'proof' of her victimhood. Shitheads like her deserve all the trolling they get.
trolling is not a credible death threat.. If she truly thought they were real, she wouldn't be blathering about it online because the fbi would've told her to keep quiet about it while they investigated. Like sarkeesian, she's after money.
Including her home address does not make it credible.
Wow, so many lamers these days. People need to realize that shit said online is not to be taken seriously. Most of the real motive behind the extreme reactions by authority and so-called 'victims' of this is just retributive power grabbing. Then there are those who were smart enough to use this easily-spun-up dynamic to garner attention and privilege (money eg: anita sarkeesian) by saying stupid, inflammatory shit about a PC subject and then crying victim when they're hit with backlash targeting their sensitive sensibilities. This is hardly complex. Children master this on the playground. Why are adults suddenly taking this seriously? I swear society is regressing to the level of a screaming toddler that isn't getting its way.
In this particular case, crybabies cryin' about rape everywhere will draw relevant 'threats' from people who are looking to troll them back. Wu shouldn't dish it if she can't even comprehend that these threats are as full of shit as her own accusations.. Of course, she probably does know this perfectly well.
She indeed brought it on herself. Generalizing and stereotyping a whole community (incorrectly I might add) and then labeling the criticism she gets as bigotry is about as hypocritical as it gets. If she can't handle the heat, she should stop and eventually people will forget about her. Of course that requires her to lose all that e-attention, and she can't be having that. She is not a victim of anything but her own self serving bullshit.
Using the law to argue morals is fallacious. It is/was also illegal for gays to marry, so I guess they shouldn't marry, right?
nice fallacies. Did you try?
The last one depends on what software and how you defined 'faster' and 'better.' A lot of software that ran fine on 7 will not start at all on 8 because of the new dwm, and that is even with ACT shims.
Why? is the site not giving your favorite OS a favorable image? Go post at neowin or something..
That's pretty subjective. From an American point of view, Europeans only have the choice between socialist, socialist, socialist, and a tiny bit less socialist, with some different locality-driven issues thrown in for each. ..and before you tell me I know jack about your specific country, it's also likely you know jack about the USA.
The term 'liberal' has been so thoroughly abused at this point that it's meaningless even with a ton of prefixes and suffixes. It used to mean someone who stands for individual liberty, rights, and freedom. Now it stands for someone who wants a big state that tosses out a few scraps of those things for specific kinds of people at the expense of the rest.