It's perfectly fine to not support GG. It's more than reasonable to dislike the poisonous adolescent online chat that comes with certain games.
It's not reasonable to label all gamers as sexist or misogynistic. You haven't, so thank you.
You have however told the people responding to those that do make those claims that they're the problem. Sorry but I disagree. How about the gaming media and certain vocal professional victims stop demonising those of us that enjoy playing computer games, and also want to read about them without being stereotyped or harassed, and want those who make the games we enjoy to be able to do so without also being threatened and harassed.
You claim it isn't true, then blast on about the lack of a review. Yoshi didn't claim there was a review.
Why have it all blow up now? Fucking read the post you replied to, it tells you why. Stop making up your own bullshit and respond to the clear simple explanation already given.
The public are seeing through the veil of media censorship and agenda pushing to try and write off GG as being about misogyny. Ongoing efforts to push that agenda are merely adding to the evidence of journalistic ethical shortcomings.
As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer, for being supposedly dead and for the attempts to damage an art form that gives me great pleasure.
Shit, just write your own non-sexist games, if you don't like the hundreds that already exist. Just stop harassing the rest of us for enjoying a broad range of games whether they fit worth your skewed world view or not.
You use Facebook as a homepage and expect us to give you any credibility?
Shit, I don't even know who you are - I can't view your homepage because I don't have an account on your homepage hosting platform of choice.
Maybe you did help build the gaming industry. So did I, and so did many people far more talented and visionary than me. Not sure what the fuck that has to do with current affairs.
Well, I've yet to have a female peer that didn't earn more than me (pro-rata - one only did three days a week, and yeah, those were still 40 hour weeks).
Yeah. I'm thinking of going activitist on this bullshit purely as a pre-emptive defense for when these fuckwits enter the workforce.
The Minister for Inequality in the UK already wants companies to post a breakdown of pay differentials by gender - without also requiring a breakdown of hours works, experience or contribution.
I can see ten years from now losing my job because I'm too fucking white or too fucking male. Fuck that.
We're discussing macroeconomics. At no point do you actually have to be able to afford anything.
More relevantly, the theory is that if you spend money you don't have on the right thing, it'll generate enough money to repay the money your borrowed and leave you extra money afterwards.
So no, this has pretty much fuck all to do with spending within your means, except that I highlighted that this might be one reason to follow an austerity approach.
If I have a mortgage then I'm already in debt. At this point I can - invest resources to generate an income that will hopefully cover the cost of my debt, or - use those resources to clear my debt
The first of those is spending my way to solvency. My point was that I could avoid having a mortgage in the first place by not spending money (e.g. by buying a holiday cottage I don't need) in the first place, thus not spending my way into insolvency (more debt than I can repay).
Something certain political parties and their supporters in this country don't understand:(
Economists merely complicate the issue by telling everybody that they're right, and wrong, depending which one you ask.
I could tell my employer I'm worth twice my current salary. They'd correctly point out that they could replace me with someone earning half the amount, in one of our lower cost locations.
It's not worth their while at my current contribution/salary ratio, but a big shift in that - particularly if I'm being arsey towards management types - triggers a shift in their willingness to avoid the cost saving opportunity.
So am I paid what I'm worth? Maybe. I'm certainly paid within a relatively narrow band of potential worth.
If you're a country, you can only spend your way to solvency by pumping money into the economy for people to do things with
That doesn't conflict with an austerity approach.
What if you don't want to spend your way to solvency. What if you want to avoid spending your way into insolvency in the first place, by adopting measures that others declare to the austerity to make it look like you're failing to invest?
Macroeconomics doesn't work, and if you want evidence, just ask any fucking economist.
This post only demonstrates your misunderstanding of things (by talking about "home routers", for example, in this context). And yes, attribution in cyber is hard -- that's one of the most-discussed, fundamental problems of cyber.
Given that 'cyber' when not used as an adjective is effectively short for 'cyber sex', this all rather puts an interesting slant on things.
Not in the UK. Probably not in the rest of the EU either.
The moment your CCTV starts recording me, you're capturing private data and you are subject to the DPA. I can SAR your flower shop and you respond or get sued.
Is it unreasonable to expect someone to track you only to the extent required to provide the service you're buying from them, and not to use that data for other abusive purposes?
Slow networks are expensive because they go out of their way to do things inefficiently. Fast networks are cheap
What the holy fuck. It's cheaper to have a fast network? Shit, all these ISPs, they've been doing it wrong all this time.
You must be a billionaire, meeting public demand for ever increasing speeds by continually reducing your costs through enhancing your network to make it faster.
Slashdot Mirror
There's something so inherently wrong with using the term "sex tape" to describe duct tape that I may have to start doing so.
It's perfectly fine to not support GG. It's more than reasonable to dislike the poisonous adolescent online chat that comes with certain games.
It's not reasonable to label all gamers as sexist or misogynistic. You haven't, so thank you.
You have however told the people responding to those that do make those claims that they're the problem. Sorry but I disagree. How about the gaming media and certain vocal professional victims stop demonising those of us that enjoy playing computer games, and also want to read about them without being stereotyped or harassed, and want those who make the games we enjoy to be able to do so without also being threatened and harassed.
Hopefully you support that much, at least?
You claim it isn't true, then blast on about the lack of a review. Yoshi didn't claim there was a review.
Why have it all blow up now? Fucking read the post you replied to, it tells you why. Stop making up your own bullshit and respond to the clear simple explanation already given.
The public are seeing through the veil of media censorship and agenda pushing to try and write off GG as being about misogyny. Ongoing efforts to push that agenda are merely adding to the evidence of journalistic ethical shortcomings.
As an independent observer I'm fucked off with the media labelling me as sexist for being a gamer, for being supposedly dead and for the attempts to damage an art form that gives me great pleasure.
Shit, just write your own non-sexist games, if you don't like the hundreds that already exist. Just stop harassing the rest of us for enjoying a broad range of games whether they fit worth your skewed world view or not.
You use Facebook as a homepage and expect us to give you any credibility?
Shit, I don't even know who you are - I can't view your homepage because I don't have an account on your homepage hosting platform of choice.
Maybe you did help build the gaming industry. So did I, and so did many people far more talented and visionary than me. Not sure what the fuck that has to do with current affairs.
SOP for the IRA in the 80s.
Sorry, is Beta Male meant to be some sort of juvenile insult?
Just that anybody that isn't a beta male is female, or Chuck Norris.
In the US, that's rape.
In the UK, it's sexual assault.
Yeah, it's fucking stupid.
Apparently if they're both drunk the crime is committed by the person that made the initial suggestion.
Of course, your scenario can't possibly be rape. It's legally defined in the UK as
(A) intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis;
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_...
Sorry no - it can be rape, if the woman changes her mind the next day. (C) Feminism.
Well, I've yet to have a female peer that didn't earn more than me (pro-rata - one only did three days a week, and yeah, those were still 40 hour weeks).
Plenty of examples of that expansion of definition too.
"There is no evidence of rape culture" isn't treated as a factual rebuttal of hyperbole, it's treated as harassment of women.
The irony is that terms like "rape apologist" are then used to justify harassing the person that stated it.
Yeah. I'm thinking of going activitist on this bullshit purely as a pre-emptive defense for when these fuckwits enter the workforce.
The Minister for Inequality in the UK already wants companies to post a breakdown of pay differentials by gender - without also requiring a breakdown of hours works, experience or contribution.
I can see ten years from now losing my job because I'm too fucking white or too fucking male. Fuck that.
erm. Ok. I'm too drunk for this, but the basics:
We're discussing macroeconomics. At no point do you actually have to be able to afford anything.
More relevantly, the theory is that if you spend money you don't have on the right thing, it'll generate enough money to repay the money your borrowed and leave you extra money afterwards.
So no, this has pretty much fuck all to do with spending within your means, except that I highlighted that this might be one reason to follow an austerity approach.
Erm. No, very different subjects.
If I have a mortgage then I'm already in debt. At this point I can
- invest resources to generate an income that will hopefully cover the cost of my debt, or
- use those resources to clear my debt
The first of those is spending my way to solvency. My point was that I could avoid having a mortgage in the first place by not spending money (e.g. by buying a holiday cottage I don't need) in the first place, thus not spending my way into insolvency (more debt than I can repay).
Something certain political parties and their supporters in this country don't understand :(
Economists merely complicate the issue by telling everybody that they're right, and wrong, depending which one you ask.
Saving during booms? During the last 'boom' the UK government increased public spending so much they had to take out more debt just to cover it.
Apparently it's the bankers' fault that the economic collapsed the moment the boom times stopped.
I think it's reasonable safe to suggest that any economist that agrees with me on economics very definitely doesn't know what they're talking about.
Sadly that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong.
I could tell my employer I'm worth twice my current salary. They'd correctly point out that they could replace me with someone earning half the amount, in one of our lower cost locations.
It's not worth their while at my current contribution/salary ratio, but a big shift in that - particularly if I'm being arsey towards management types - triggers a shift in their willingness to avoid the cost saving opportunity.
So am I paid what I'm worth? Maybe. I'm certainly paid within a relatively narrow band of potential worth.
Hmm. The UK has costs like those, but not salaries.
If you're a country, you can only spend your way to solvency by pumping money into the economy for people to do things with
That doesn't conflict with an austerity approach.
What if you don't want to spend your way to solvency. What if you want to avoid spending your way into insolvency in the first place, by adopting measures that others declare to the austerity to make it look like you're failing to invest?
Macroeconomics doesn't work, and if you want evidence, just ask any fucking economist.
This post only demonstrates your misunderstanding of things (by talking about "home routers", for example, in this context). And yes, attribution in cyber is hard -- that's one of the most-discussed, fundamental problems of cyber.
Given that 'cyber' when not used as an adjective is effectively short for 'cyber sex', this all rather puts an interesting slant on things.
Not in the UK. Probably not in the rest of the EU either.
The moment your CCTV starts recording me, you're capturing private data and you are subject to the DPA. I can SAR your flower shop and you respond or get sued.
Is it unreasonable to expect someone to track you only to the extent required to provide the service you're buying from them, and not to use that data for other abusive purposes?
'jerkin it' is illegal?
Slow networks are expensive because they go out of their way to do things inefficiently. Fast networks are cheap
What the holy fuck. It's cheaper to have a fast network? Shit, all these ISPs, they've been doing it wrong all this time.
You must be a billionaire, meeting public demand for ever increasing speeds by continually reducing your costs through enhancing your network to make it faster.
Really?
His wife can't go out and earn a living? Even 20 years later when the kids are adults?
Why the fuck should she get the easy life, to the detriment of society at large.
Holy fuck. You truly are a fucking idiot.
No, the situation was not resolved. He set up a group (as stated in the Tab), the SU said no, FemSoc said, "Be a good little slave and behave for us".
Learn how to read, process information and analyse it before commenting further, your interpretation is facile and false.
the biggest causes of male suicide are the ones that the feminists are trying to address
By refusing men the chance to speak on an equal basis at any FemSoc event, including their own subsidiary FemSoc-MenSoc events?
Oh please.
Fuck this, you're a blithering imbecile, I can't win an argument with someone that lacks basic skills in logic.