Fighter

I didn't know if I should put it in the "funny things" thread or here. I'll put it here to spare the potential whining from some people.

If you read her actual article she's talking about internet as a whole and how much harassment all online users receive.

They would have to change the laws too. Because their problem no matter what they say isn't the tiny percentage of people who can be legally persecuted if they are found. Their problem is the mass of people who just don't like them and are vocal about it. Which is not yet illegal.

I'm not sure what they expect anyone does about it. No seriously, what are the practical measures of combating harassment?

I dunno... Some people trained themselves to fly commercial jetliners to do a bad thing. Which took a long time and money.

Don't want to give anyone ideas but have always wondered why certain inclined people out there haven't tried doing something really bad with what you can imagine doing with drones and some effort.

^ Where is that from?

First of all you're the only one who used the word satire. I never said it was satire. I did use their lingo somewhat dramatically and hyperbolically to perhaps hint at the hypocrisies. Second your nitpicks are still nonsense. Toxic is toxic, it's pretty simple and differences in use you've described in such detail aren't worth talking about. You demand an exact replication when a general use of the notion of toxicity when it comes to behavior is just fine. Third you can be a toxic person (in your subscribed interpretation) and be a slowly poisoning presence, one doesn't negate the other. It's not like you can easily get rid of them can you. When you begin to act like a caricature playground stereotype like from some kid movie you get a playground argument...

Let me explain to you in detail, then. What you claimed to be an attempt at emulating "the SJW lingo" was essentially this sentence: "[a harpy made of corn syrup is] an appropriately toxic image for the slow poison it is". Whereas, one assumes, "the slow poison" refers both to corn syrup (which is spectacularly unhealthy) and TEH EVILZ OF FEMINISM (who will, presumably, take all of our freedomz in seemingly-innocuous baby steps, hence "slow" and "poison"). Problem with the usage of "toxic image" is that a/ it either directly refers to "slow poison" itself, which is, while technically true, also a tautology (poison is toxic, who would've thought?) or b/ it's about the feminist harpies slowly poisoning our society, which would be golden, except... While "SJWs" don't categorically reserve the term "toxic" to inanimate phenomena, whenever it's used to characterize people, it generally refers to the kind who make civil conversation impossible by their very presence (you probably know the type, loud, abrasive, have no clue of what they're talking about), not those who are insidious and manipulative. Hence, if "slow poison" refers to feminists, the usage of "toxic" wouldn't really apply, since in your interpretation, society doesn't realize it's been poisoned UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE (dun dun dun!). Or if we're specifically referring to the subgroup of feminists who are toxic, the "slow poison" term is inadequate. Therefore, we have three possibilities: either the usage of "toxic" in the sentence is a tautology, or it fails to emulate the conventions of the group you claim to mock, or your metaphor is a mess. (Also, as someone who has a passing familiarity with how human bodies work, I take issue with the implied characterization of corn syrup as "toxic". It's about as toxic as table salt, ie. while it can kill you, it's really not a very practical way of poisoning someone.) 1) Most people who misunderstand something generally don't realize they misunderstand it. Hence misunderstanding, not "un-understanding". 2) If you're attempting to satirize a group's usage of words, yes, it's kind of your job to understand how they're actually using those words. Or at least to not throw a butthurt temper tantrum when someone corrects you. That is spectacularly nerdy and convoluted and picky way to dismiss something that you didn't like. I may get back to it... None of it however is news that I didn't know and is so utterly irrelevant to my using the same words for their negative associating and meaning that is both correct and emulates what they are trying to say well enough in terms of the general direction of the idea. Also, my god, the corn syrup... just to drive home the pedantic pickiness.

That... wouldn't be much of a progress from an artistic standpoint, would it. No. But the figurative Call of Duty that symbolizes the male dominated AAA and is the constant target of critique isn't an artistic masterpiece either. ...I thought we wanted better, not "roughly the same amount of crap, but now in pink". Better can only be a small percentage of everything else. First make sure creators see wider demographic as an opportunity rather than a risk.

Again alum... "I know better. I'm more qualified. I'm more experienced." This has no meaning, just self imposed titles. 1) I don't think I'm misunderstanding "SJWs". 2) If I do it's not really my job to understand their bizarre reinventions of commonly understood words when they are trying to talk to the public.

That... wouldn't be much of a progress from an artistic standpoint, would it. No. But the figurative Call of Duty that symbolizes the male dominated AAA and is the constant target of critique isn't an artistic masterpiece either.

You don't get to decide any of those things. You don't get to claim to be in the right about either the context or the usage of words. You do not get to pass judgment on the adequacy of my communication which you've continually misinterpreted. You're not uniquely qualified to decide what words mean and how they are used. So if you want me to understand your substance derived smugness you should have explained. Otherwise right back at you.

Someone is going to figure out how to make the video game version of Twilight or Hunger Games and get untapped demographics to buy consoles and AAA games en mass.

Translation: "Let my argument be to just call you an ignorant idiot. I don't have to explain squat, just to act all superior". Feel better now? Oh, and don't be getting upset. I'm "punching up" since you're so much more knowledgeable than the sexist rabble.

Perhaps ironically I just wanted to emulate the feminist/social justice way of describing things. I think I should use "problematic" next I think that's taking over the various acidic imagery like toxic and poisonous lately. Like: Their rightly recognized as hateful lingo is problematic.

An appropriately toxic image for the slow poison that it is.

I'm really just speaking my mind. Not following any kind of strategy. Honestly I think despite of how self assured they feel in their righteousness people will eventually get fed up with the bizarre aspects of what they are so far able to push through.

I'm not really getting into this. Only to say that, nope, plenty of those feminist people are viscous harpies and hypocrites and richly deserve to be called out. But it's not politically correct to even suggest that they've got that problem so they get a complete pass unlike anyone who even dare suggest there is anything under the sun that's unfair to men.

Well Bruce I appreciate that you at least see some validity people's reactions to the whole thing. I think this forum is a great idea. I appreciate the opportunity to see what's in people's heads. I'm sure they'll show everyone how "different" they are from the people they say they criticize.

Well they decided they are going to claim it as a way of disarming the mockery. But I still use and view it as a mockery. Because IMO in this context to call yourself a warrior instead of an activist or social change advocate or critic sounds very pompous. But maybe that's just my 'toxic masculinity' way of viewing what an actual warrior is.

I always thought SJW was a mock term like Keyboard Warrior or Armchair General. Then some of them came out and asked "why are you using that as an insult I'm proud to be one"? Because it's silly. As silly as unironically calling yourself a superhero.

I am ready to give up... It is hard to understand because it is the logic not befitting of an intelligent person. I cannot say it anymore softly. There is no justifiable excuse for becoming anti-men anymore than there is for becoming a misogynist. If you do you're just a bigot. Period. And you get blamed for being one.

Bruce... Anti-men. ANTI-MEN. Not anti Gamergate, not anti MRA, not anti <insert group>. Anti-men. Your words. I would assume someone who was a CEO would have the basic intelligence to figure this out. And you too. Would I blame her? Yeah... for being a bigot. Which she would be.