Shallow

If you click the speech bubble icon in the quote it'll take you to the post.

Bruce, there's evidence that she tried to kill him, there's 0 evidence he was abusive, according to the article she actively said this was just about the money to the hitman-cop, in any event: 1. It isn't self defense when you aren't in immediate danger, I can't shoot a guy and then say "Self defense, we got into a fight back in highschool!". The same rules should obviously ****ing apply to hiring a hitman to kill the guy I got into a fight with back in highschool. 2. If she'd gone to the cops saying he was abusive they would've probably believed her with 0 evidence like the judge/jury did here, you know, the perks of being a women and all, thus leaving was an option. 3. You'd never defend this if she was a man, the insane extent of your whiteknighting is truly frightening.

Words can't express the surprise I feel at encountering straw feminist clichés from the mouths of self-professed 'equalists'. Words can't express the surprise I feel at encountering people who can't that a joke. For the record the style the statement was made in was the joke, I fully believe the sentiment applies to a decent portion of feminists.

I can say that I share the sentiment of being tired at this juncture, you cannot however forget all the goodwill that GG has garnered and throw away because you want to make funny comments. Besides: "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake." Screw good will, we don't need the public. The greatest difference between equalism and feminism is that according to egalitarians the various gender inequalities have arisen from men and women in ancient times being more effective at different roles, thus society gradually built up a culture trying to enforce said roles, even though in our day and age those roles aren't really necessary, according to feminists women are oppressed becuz patriarchy, and no such thing as inequality favoring women exists.

Except when you debate with SJW and feminists they generally have the moral high ground even if sometimes there intentions are misplaced I'm not so sure about that... Well think about it, most of the time the criticism against SJW is that they are only looking at one side of the debate and trying to implement change is society when its not necessarily relevant. Its not suppose to be malicious ? Having the moral high ground means being morally superior to their opponents, they don't need to be flat out malicious to not be better than the people telling them to go to hell. You could probably also say the exact same thing about the people you were debating with, I highly doubt they seek to destroy Africa, I just think they have different ideas on how to improve it than you. True, they do have different ideas. But that doesn't change the fact there ideas are wrong I'm aware that's how you feel, thus Also, I wasn't trying to tell you they have different ideas that you think are wrong, I was trying to tell you your use of moral high ground was flawed, and that you description of how you expect us to feel about debating with sjws is like exactly the same as our description of how we expect you to feel debating about Africa, thus Volos statement is extraordinarily true and sensible.

Except when you debate with SJW and feminists they generally have the moral high ground even if sometimes there intentions are misplaced I'm not so sure about that... Well think about it, most of the time the criticism against SJW is that they are only looking at one side of the debate and trying to implement change is society when its not necessarily relevant. Its not suppose to be malicious ? Having the moral high ground means being morally superior to their opponents, they don't need to be flat out malicious to not be better than the people telling them to go to hell. You could probably also say the exact same thing about the people you were debating with, I highly doubt they seek to destroy Africa, I just think they have different ideas on how to improve it than you.

She does indeed look quite creeped out, but during the shots from those five minutes he didn't appear to attempt to start up conversation again, or to look at her (can be difficult to tell with his face being blurred and all though).

Thought it was two different other guys saying those two things, sorry about that. To be fair though, he was already walking in that direction, he merely slowed down whilst talking to her, then went back up to his regular speed.

The one guy who was trying to talk to her whilst following her definitely was a creep and that was what I'd consider harassment, but on the other hand the video includes some random guy just walking in the same direction as her for a couple minutes, neither looking at her nor initiating conversation, she could've at least intentionally slowed down for a bit and seen if he'd do the same if she wanted to a label him as an evil harassing meanie, putting that in a harassment video almost evens the other thing out, only almost though. Sure a lot of that catcalling stuff is annoying, but on the other side of the fence it's annoying how blatantly obvious it can be that someone you aren't looking at and aren't talking to is thinking "God this guy is a creep he must want to rape me or something, ****ing mysogynist leave me alone.". Random strangers giving you excessive sexual compliments is probably really annoying and intrusive, but random strangers crossing the street late night because they're afraid of you, with no provocation, is downright insulting.

Isn't acting retarded so people will have fun laughing at you more of a clown thing than a troll thing? Isn't trolling supposed to be more like people you making people go ape**** and then laughing at them?

Sacrificing anarchy at the alter to the trolls elevates them to gods and us to their worshipers, when you choose your shepherd you also choose your wolves, so be weary when you let someone represent you, you're not just handing over control to them, you're declaring the wolves the center of your world. Edit: Sorry for the double post.

YOU POOR THING, YOU'VE BEEN RUN FROM YOUR HOME BY AN ANGRY MOB OF THREE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING TO BREACH YOUR HOME! Surely you must be in need of donations to help you get through these troublesome times.

Jack the ripper is just some overhyped loser, only killed like six people, just because you've heard of him doesn't mean he was any more significant. To be fair though all histories biggest genocidal superstars were male, but that's probably more due to men dominating country control, not because men like their genocide.

Was that thing an actual quote?

Once found a hedgehog surrounded by three cats, it's desperate breathing was one of the most uncomfortable sounds I've ever heard.

The average Chinese person has just as much influence as 49% (or 32% I guess) of the population in a standard democracy has.

If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it so it makes sense. Who made the decision that a leader with more than 50% backing inside a nationstate is the only "legitimate" leader? What about a leader appointed according to his countrys constitution? Italy had a PM for a while that was appointed "Senator for Life" by the President and appointed PM and a cabinet consisting of People not elected for anything (i.e. technocrats). He was never elected, yet no NATO planes swooped in and bombed Rome back to the stone age. Bruce has a weird western democracy fetish. Also the US has that whole stupid whoever gets 51% of a places votes gets 100% of the people withins votes, guess the republicans were right, Obama is an illegitimate tyrant.

Just because someone existed before western intervention doesn't mean the west didn't put them in charge, without the west Gaddafi would've been in charge, thus the west put them in charge, it's that simple. The west had influence in that the west literally removed the last guy from the throne and gave the new guys their blessing. On the flip side if Assad had been allowed to go all out and gas his citizens the Syrian war would be over as well, and if the west had been allowed to butcher Assad odds are fighting would still be going on, just like in Libya, because the various tribals and religious nuts and foreign muslims all want control. You can't just remove all infrastructure and then not expect the vultures to be vultures. Random foreigners would be even more willing to enter Syria if you completely broke the country instead of just the current status quo where other arab nations have been screwing around. You need to realize that when you act, you're responsible for more than just the immediate reaction, you're responsible for the chain reaction, you can't just wreck a nation and then go "It's their fault, they should've been better at western democracy even though western democracy doesn't work under such conditions!"... I expect Oby or someone will write an adequate response to the bottom portion of your post.

It was, one of the funniest episodes of that show imo.

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that. I just want to focus on Libya as that is what we are discussing, I have always maintained that Libya is how the West can get involved in legitimate regime with relatively little impact around committing resources. This is not the same thing as now the West being responsible for actions or inactions of the government that follows So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that for maximum impact. He never held a free and fair election in 30 years . He ruled the country through control of the army and police. So before I make my main point I fail to see how anyone can say "he was illegally removed from power " ...being a dictator who came to power through a military coup doesn't make you legitimate When the Arab spring started and people started questioning certain governments in the Middle East Gaddafi had the choice to negotiate and address the concerns of the protestors, like the Saudis did where the king of Saudi Arabia basically gave $30 Billion dollars to transformation projects that the protestors were asking for. But Gaddafi decided to use the full might of his army and police to crush any opposition to his dictatorial rule. A civil war started but the military advantage was on the side of Gaddafi because he was quite prepared to use every single military resource he had. His forces surrounded the Libyan rebels in a town call Misrata and this battle was known as the Siege of Misrata and is very significant because its why the West intervened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata Gaddafi was prepared to commit genocide against his own people by levelling the entire town to the ground and the UN security council voted to allow NATO to directly intervene and prevent this massacre of tens of thousands of people. NATO did end the siege through surgical air strikes but then continued to aid the rebels by destroying Gaddafi's tanks and airpower. Now you can argue they over stepped the UN mandate but my point is " so what ". They helped remove a dictator from power and didn't need "boots on the ground". Why do we care if someone like Gaddafi is removed from power due to the efforts of his own people? The West wouldn't have been able to do this without the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi was executed by the rebels. So this wasn't some sort of assassination plot Once Gaddafi was defeated the Libyan rebels didn't want the West telling them how to now run there new government because there was and still is resistance to any attempts by perceived Western "imperialism ". So the West obliged the Libyans and allowed them correctly to run Libya the way they saw fit. Its not the Wests fault that there is now sectarian violence in Libya caused by disenfranchised tribes. This is something that the Libyans need to resolve for themselves, they are now charge of there own destiny. Its the exact same thing that happened in Iraq where the new Iraqi government decided to not incorporate the Sunni minority in the new political dispensation And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council So in summary the West did the right thing in removing Gaddafi from power, it can't be held responsible for the decisions or actions of the government that followed First off, as I said earlier, we already know the west can take out any third world country should it put its mind to it, just because you can do that doesn't mean you should. I don't recall saying he was illegally removed from power, you rule by the sword, you die by the sword, however, killing him off only hurt the nation, we should've left him be. When you put a group of people in charge of something, you are as responsible as those people for what they do, just because you stepped back it doesn't change the fact that you empowered these people. You can't put incompetent people with limited power and authority in charge of bringing together a bunch of fractured people and expect miracles, you are responsible for what happens latter down the road when you start the chain reactions. One quick brief genocide is better than a lengthy bloody civil war and the ensuring lengthy bloody civil wars that follow. The reason Syria is going down the way it is is that a bunch of foreigners entered the nation, Assads main opposition, ISIS, mainly consists of random people from all over the world. Libyans were way better off under Gaddafi, I'm fairly sure your happiness polling would agree with me if they did surveys within the proper timeframes. You insist on forcing western style democracy on people when it clearly doesn't work for them, there are three ways you can deal with fractured tribes that work, silly western democracies aren't one of them: 1. A strong dictatorship 2. Forcing the tribes to mingle, forcing the tribes to shatter and banishing various people to various parts of the country, then doing everything possible, including forced adoption, to break tribal ties. 3. Institute a heavily decentralized government, one whose central authority has essentially no power, one that gives each group their own military, and control over their local natural resources. Personally I'd prefer 1 or 3, but 2 is the only one that could possibly work if you eventually want to force things into a western democracy mold. Western democracy isn't perfect, it has several benefits, but it is crap for fractured societies, different governments are needed in different environments, western democracy isn't superior at everything, though it is suburb for casual people who just want to go about their life without doing that much of anything. Also by your genocide standards Ukraine was committing genocide against Donetsk and Luhansk, initiate the nato airstrikes at once!

I'm aware that organic farming takes up way more space and has no clear benefits besides feeding bugs and not poisoning bugs, but how is it horrible for the environment outside that?

I didn't mean "This isn't your idea, other people also thought of it, stop trying to take the credit.", I meant "This isn't really the same concept as the one you were suggesting.". Also, it doesn't really seem as if you understand it, but the whole anarchyish leaderless uncontrolled rabble is a pretty integral part of this whole thing for a decent amount of GGrs. Acceptance by mainstreamers also isn't the most important thing, most of the older ones of us have gone through periods of being accused of satanism/otherwise being deeply disturbed by regulars, back then it was mainly more conservative/evangelical people, but being alienated by leftists really isn't that different, they just call you different forms of morally corrupt. If mainstreamers don't want to accept us, basically, f*** them.

At last my suggestion to add credibility to the GG movement has been implemented, well done for whoever created this. The site isn't official in any way, it's a nice enough site and all, but it isn't official, and everyone can still use the hashtag regardless of whether they approve of anything the site says. The site itself even states that gamergate is a leaderless mob and thus it isn't pretending to be any real form of authority, it isn't really your idea as much as it's just some random progamergate people deciding to make a website about gamergate.

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that.

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with?