Actually, MRAs are a relatively new societal response to the blight on freedom that is feminist politics. It's not just a fad. You do get the part about the reshaping and closing of internet culture, though. It's been oozing from a lot of orifices, recently and it's unfortunate.
Criticizing feminists and feminism is not misogyny. Unfortunately, white knighting fools get this wrong quite a bit. Calling people 'haters' or their positions as hateful are not arguments either.
I'm sure he won't also allow equivalent criticism of men, right? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anti-male feminist vitriol is perfectly ok. People who actually take so much offense to free expression that they insist on censorship are really the ones who need help. If these were baptists, no one would give them any mercy, but when feminists and/or women are the target, suddenly 'equality' gets thrown out the window by knee jerking white knight mangina useful idiots swooping in to 'save' them. This 'fark dude' is one of them apparently.
I also like how he claims his site "represents enough of a departure from pretty much every other internet community that [he figures] an announcement is necessary", totally ignoring the fact that lots of sites are doing this, now, out of a relatively new culture of PC corporate sterility and/or morbid fear of losing clicks. This new 'social justice' bandwagon of appealing to the feelings of the easily offended makes for a 'perfect' excuse. What happened to round-filing complaints for unpopular criticism and calling whiners out for the losers they are?
Yup. there are a lot of suckers out there. The people paying into her kickstarter are the chumps. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the few people in the community who deliberately feed her shit for her reaction (that game being an example). She baits this trollish behavior right to herself like flies to shit. Whether she does this knowingly for exposure or 'proof', or is genuinely offended, I don't know, but I have to believe she has the intellect to know what kind of reaction she'd get. Her attack on the community is in her generalizations concluding that most of the community has created this massive conspiracy against her, and that she's 'merely' an agency-less victim fighting for 'social justice'.
What else does she do? Well you should watch her vids to see. She deliberately misrepresents the purpose and intent of game designers in various games to 'prove' her conspiracy theories. The implied scapegoat behind it all, of course, is the average male gamer, who is apparently both responsible for supporting as well as being misogynistically brainwashed by, these games. Implied conclusion: male gamers are stupid pigs. A feminist concluding such sexist generalizations under the guise of fighting sexist generalizations should not surprise anyone.
She's also been found to be a fraud who claimed she was a gamer but was not. She's also been found to be using other people's playthrough videos as source material instead of her own. The video footage proving both of these is probably one of the big reasons she gets so much vitriol from gamers. No one likes a hypocrite, and people positively detest a preachy one who suckers people out of money with victim routines.
Well, complaining about behavior while engaging in it is like slapping a 'kick me' sign on your back and then using all the kicks you get as 'proof' of your victim status. Hypocrites that ask for it deserve no sympathy.
No, I see tit for tat. She deliberately baits the gaming community with fallacy ridden nonsense, and they respond in kind, giving her exactly what she said existed with a big tongue-in-cheek LOL. The community knew she'd either pretend to take it seriously for the sake of exposure and $$$, granting tons of entertainment value, or really take it seriously, granting even more entertainment value. While those people represent a tiny fraction of the community, she lumped those who gave logical retorts in with them to avoid having to answer the criticism and to flesh out the stats to justify her conspiracy theories. This is par for the course with so-called 'social justice' these days.
Professional whiners like her deserve what they get. No one likes being told they're pieces of shit by these whiners for not readily surrendering to their demands for privilege. Like thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play. Deny them access to your organization and they won't have the opportunity to inject it with their culture viruses and siphon its resources into another mouthpiece for their next target.
Women like sarkeesian sully the reps of women everywhere.
Well that's what professional victimhood trollbaiters like her do. They deliberately push buttons with fallacy ridden, hypocritical content and then label the vitriolic response as proof of their victimhood.
Simple, when you try to use the state to force people not to be greedy, you end up building it into the greedy control freak you wanted to avoid in the first place.
When everyone has universal income, few will actually want to produce anything worth buying beyond basic necessities, which they will just produce for themselves. When the state sees this, it will step in and redistribute, demoralizing these producers as well. This is what happened to consumer goods in the soviet union.
Better to just not own/use a smartphone.. or a cellphone at all. It's still possible to do and retain a social life.
Spare me the "well everyone expects you to have one now" responses. We're all too caught up in choosing convenience over protecting ourselves from tyranny.
It's funny, but to me, most adults seem to have a real problem remembering how they saw things as children, and I think that's the primary reason why they tend towards overprotectiveness. I don't claim to have perfect memory, but I never had any issues determining what's reality and what's fantasy. To me, books, games, movies etc were just that: books, games, and movies. They were entertaining diversions. I knew they could represent ideas/concepts that aren't real. Reality was what's happening in front of me and what I could figure out for myself, but I was one of those kids who never bought into santa claus either.
Games like call of duty are targeted at 14 year olds, and by that age, I'd already had 10 years of practice at the above. By 10/11, these kids should already have a sound foundation of reality. If not, then that's serious parental neglect. If their parents did their jobs right, there's no reason to take them to israel to teach them the lesson. There's a lot of 'omg violence' over there, and I think he's just being over-the-top preachy and/or acting out of overprotective concern.
External factors do influence of course, but I think it's overly simplistic to assume tweenage kids think cod = real war, where soldiers respawn after they're shot.
well, people need to learn to filter all prose they ready for valid arguments and facts, then discard the rest. When this is done, it doesn't really matter what motivations the author had. The statements stand or fall on their own.
Many of the authors on sites like jezebel are pure trollbaiters. They want to attract and concentrate the negative stereotypical attitude they claim is so rampant in society and then use it to 'justify' their victimhood routines. In many cases, these articles have a lot of well reasoned responses in the comments that the authors label as trolls so they dont' have to answer any valid criticisms. Honest to god troll posts (pictures and such) are zero content and should just be ignored.
This dynamic really does make them deserve the 4chan style responses they get in their comments sections for their ideological hypocrisy and professional victimhood. They asked for it, and they shouldn't expect much sympathy if they can't take what they dish. The internet is not a tv talk show.
Moderators who think that protecting feelings and consensus is more important than free discourse can also trigger a flight of high quality contributors. Increasingly, this is the trend nowadays, as everything is slowly lobotomized of any trait that is even remotely unique or challenging to the most banal of world views.
The recent spate of articles here about siteops complaining of 'trolls' is a perfect example of this. The sites known for clickbaiting, or just really bad reasoning in their content, are often the ones complaining the loudest about trolls. The fact is, the majority of posts/comments labeled troll are not actually troll posts. It's perfectly normal to expect negative commentary when the content is riddled with fallacies and passive aggression.
As a child, I had no issues seeing games for what they are. The same is true today. Parents need to parent and stop blaming games or anything else, for 'influence.' If you're not gonna parent, don't have kids.
call of duty != war. That's fine if he wants to take his kids to israel, but I think there are easier, cheaper ways to reality check his kids.
Right,and that part about 'behave responsibly' is where the totalitarianism kicks in. An elite class who ends up owning the means of production 'for the people', tries to enforce its idea of 'responsibility' on them through social engineering and show-trial justice. We've already seen what happens there, quite recently in fact, and it amazes me how quickly supposedly smart people around here forget this. 'Planned economies' don't work because the ruling class views the proles as statistical machines instead of individuals with their own interests and desires. You can't dictate the latter two.
This 'minimum income' idea does not stand the test of economics 101. People respond to incentives and governments cannot dictate the market value of currency and then print as much of it as possible. This is one of the problems facing the US right now.
Uh ok. Sounds like the director is just trying to avoid the false dilemma shaming language coming from feminist critics. The false dilemma being that he is obligated to 'prove' he isn't anti-gay by having openly gay characters, and since he doesn't, he's a closet-bigot.
Nevermind the fact he has a right to develop his story any way he likes. He shouldn't have to be so careful or apologetic in his speech.
This is a no true scotsman fallacy. The fact is that the majority of funded feminism's lobby groups and activists openly support extracting wealth/resource/rights from men and granting them as privilege to women. That is militant 1970s style feminism applied as policy. Jezebel is one of the most open supporters of this, as is huffingtonpost.
That statement would be fallacious, yes, unless the subject was about being gangraped by niggers or the attributes of filthy whores. However, labeling the comment 'hate' is still an ad hominem because instead of addressing the content of the comment, it assaults the commenter's character. Should she get gang raped by niggers? Is she a filthy whore? Obviously, this poster didn't bother to justify the position.
People need to learn to ignore contentless statements like that. The only reason that comment was posted was because the poster figured it would get to the author. The only reason the poster knew this was possible is because of the passive aggressive pity party that is jezebel.
Fallacy. It's not whether women deserve fair treatment, it's that feminism does not treat men justly, and that jezebel is a perfect example of the mindset it produces.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, MRAs are a relatively new societal response to the blight on freedom that is feminist politics. It's not just a fad. You do get the part about the reshaping and closing of internet culture, though. It's been oozing from a lot of orifices, recently and it's unfortunate.
Criticizing feminists and feminism is not misogyny. Unfortunately, white knighting fools get this wrong quite a bit. Calling people 'haters' or their positions as hateful are not arguments either.
I'm sure he won't also allow equivalent criticism of men, right? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anti-male feminist vitriol is perfectly ok. People who actually take so much offense to free expression that they insist on censorship are really the ones who need help. If these were baptists, no one would give them any mercy, but when feminists and/or women are the target, suddenly 'equality' gets thrown out the window by knee jerking white knight mangina useful idiots swooping in to 'save' them. This 'fark dude' is one of them apparently.
I also like how he claims his site "represents enough of a departure from pretty much every other internet community that [he figures] an announcement is necessary", totally ignoring the fact that lots of sites are doing this, now, out of a relatively new culture of PC corporate sterility and/or morbid fear of losing clicks. This new 'social justice' bandwagon of appealing to the feelings of the easily offended makes for a 'perfect' excuse. What happened to round-filing complaints for unpopular criticism and calling whiners out for the losers they are?
Yup. there are a lot of suckers out there. The people paying into her kickstarter are the chumps. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the few people in the community who deliberately feed her shit for her reaction (that game being an example). She baits this trollish behavior right to herself like flies to shit. Whether she does this knowingly for exposure or 'proof', or is genuinely offended, I don't know, but I have to believe she has the intellect to know what kind of reaction she'd get. Her attack on the community is in her generalizations concluding that most of the community has created this massive conspiracy against her, and that she's 'merely' an agency-less victim fighting for 'social justice'.
What else does she do? Well you should watch her vids to see. She deliberately misrepresents the purpose and intent of game designers in various games to 'prove' her conspiracy theories. The implied scapegoat behind it all, of course, is the average male gamer, who is apparently both responsible for supporting as well as being misogynistically brainwashed by, these games. Implied conclusion: male gamers are stupid pigs. A feminist concluding such sexist generalizations under the guise of fighting sexist generalizations should not surprise anyone.
She's also been found to be a fraud who claimed she was a gamer but was not. She's also been found to be using other people's playthrough videos as source material instead of her own. The video footage proving both of these is probably one of the big reasons she gets so much vitriol from gamers. No one likes a hypocrite, and people positively detest a preachy one who suckers people out of money with victim routines.
Well, complaining about behavior while engaging in it is like slapping a 'kick me' sign on your back and then using all the kicks you get as 'proof' of your victim status. Hypocrites that ask for it deserve no sympathy.
Right. The problem is that when women do it, it's considered 'empowering.' When men do it, it's considered sexist bigotry.
No, I see tit for tat. She deliberately baits the gaming community with fallacy ridden nonsense, and they respond in kind, giving her exactly what she said existed with a big tongue-in-cheek LOL. The community knew she'd either pretend to take it seriously for the sake of exposure and $$$, granting tons of entertainment value, or really take it seriously, granting even more entertainment value. While those people represent a tiny fraction of the community, she lumped those who gave logical retorts in with them to avoid having to answer the criticism and to flesh out the stats to justify her conspiracy theories. This is par for the course with so-called 'social justice' these days.
Professional whiners like her deserve what they get. No one likes being told they're pieces of shit by these whiners for not readily surrendering to their demands for privilege. Like thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play. Deny them access to your organization and they won't have the opportunity to inject it with their culture viruses and siphon its resources into another mouthpiece for their next target.
Women like sarkeesian sully the reps of women everywhere.
Well that's what professional victimhood trollbaiters like her do. They deliberately push buttons with fallacy ridden, hypocritical content and then label the vitriolic response as proof of their victimhood.
convenience rules the internet of things.
Simple, when you try to use the state to force people not to be greedy, you end up building it into the greedy control freak you wanted to avoid in the first place.
When everyone has universal income, few will actually want to produce anything worth buying beyond basic necessities, which they will just produce for themselves. When the state sees this, it will step in and redistribute, demoralizing these producers as well. This is what happened to consumer goods in the soviet union.
and politically illiterate college kids voted for tyranny to get free stuff.
If this is good advice, the government is tyrannical.
Better to just not own/use a smartphone.. or a cellphone at all. It's still possible to do and retain a social life.
Spare me the "well everyone expects you to have one now" responses. We're all too caught up in choosing convenience over protecting ourselves from tyranny.
It's funny, but to me, most adults seem to have a real problem remembering how they saw things as children, and I think that's the primary reason why they tend towards overprotectiveness. I don't claim to have perfect memory, but I never had any issues determining what's reality and what's fantasy. To me, books, games, movies etc were just that: books, games, and movies. They were entertaining diversions. I knew they could represent ideas/concepts that aren't real. Reality was what's happening in front of me and what I could figure out for myself, but I was one of those kids who never bought into santa claus either.
Games like call of duty are targeted at 14 year olds, and by that age, I'd already had 10 years of practice at the above. By 10/11, these kids should already have a sound foundation of reality. If not, then that's serious parental neglect. If their parents did their jobs right, there's no reason to take them to israel to teach them the lesson. There's a lot of 'omg violence' over there, and I think he's just being over-the-top preachy and/or acting out of overprotective concern.
External factors do influence of course, but I think it's overly simplistic to assume tweenage kids think cod = real war, where soldiers respawn after they're shot.
well, people need to learn to filter all prose they ready for valid arguments and facts, then discard the rest. When this is done, it doesn't really matter what motivations the author had. The statements stand or fall on their own.
Many of the authors on sites like jezebel are pure trollbaiters. They want to attract and concentrate the negative stereotypical attitude they claim is so rampant in society and then use it to 'justify' their victimhood routines. In many cases, these articles have a lot of well reasoned responses in the comments that the authors label as trolls so they dont' have to answer any valid criticisms. Honest to god troll posts (pictures and such) are zero content and should just be ignored.
This dynamic really does make them deserve the 4chan style responses they get in their comments sections for their ideological hypocrisy and professional victimhood. They asked for it, and they shouldn't expect much sympathy if they can't take what they dish. The internet is not a tv talk show.
Moderators who think that protecting feelings and consensus is more important than free discourse can also trigger a flight of high quality contributors. Increasingly, this is the trend nowadays, as everything is slowly lobotomized of any trait that is even remotely unique or challenging to the most banal of world views.
The recent spate of articles here about siteops complaining of 'trolls' is a perfect example of this. The sites known for clickbaiting, or just really bad reasoning in their content, are often the ones complaining the loudest about trolls. The fact is, the majority of posts/comments labeled troll are not actually troll posts. It's perfectly normal to expect negative commentary when the content is riddled with fallacies and passive aggression.
As a child, I had no issues seeing games for what they are. The same is true today. Parents need to parent and stop blaming games or anything else, for 'influence.' If you're not gonna parent, don't have kids.
call of duty != war. That's fine if he wants to take his kids to israel, but I think there are easier, cheaper ways to reality check his kids.
Right,and that part about 'behave responsibly' is where the totalitarianism kicks in. An elite class who ends up owning the means of production 'for the people', tries to enforce its idea of 'responsibility' on them through social engineering and show-trial justice. We've already seen what happens there, quite recently in fact, and it amazes me how quickly supposedly smart people around here forget this. 'Planned economies' don't work because the ruling class views the proles as statistical machines instead of individuals with their own interests and desires. You can't dictate the latter two.
This 'minimum income' idea does not stand the test of economics 101. People respond to incentives and governments cannot dictate the market value of currency and then print as much of it as possible. This is one of the problems facing the US right now.
Does your cloud support push technology?
Uh ok. Sounds like the director is just trying to avoid the false dilemma shaming language coming from feminist critics. The false dilemma being that he is obligated to 'prove' he isn't anti-gay by having openly gay characters, and since he doesn't, he's a closet-bigot.
Nevermind the fact he has a right to develop his story any way he likes. He shouldn't have to be so careful or apologetic in his speech.
This is a no true scotsman fallacy. The fact is that the majority of funded feminism's lobby groups and activists openly support extracting wealth/resource/rights from men and granting them as privilege to women. That is militant 1970s style feminism applied as policy. Jezebel is one of the most open supporters of this, as is huffingtonpost.
That statement would be fallacious, yes, unless the subject was about being gangraped by niggers or the attributes of filthy whores. However, labeling the comment 'hate' is still an ad hominem because instead of addressing the content of the comment, it assaults the commenter's character. Should she get gang raped by niggers? Is she a filthy whore? Obviously, this poster didn't bother to justify the position.
People need to learn to ignore contentless statements like that. The only reason that comment was posted was because the poster figured it would get to the author. The only reason the poster knew this was possible is because of the passive aggressive pity party that is jezebel.
Fallacy. It's not whether women deserve fair treatment, it's that feminism does not treat men justly, and that jezebel is a perfect example of the mindset it produces.
or you could just grow a thicker skin so you don't feel the need to silence people you don't agree with.
Easily trolled beliefs are often the ones with the least reason and fact backing them.