aluminiumtrioxid

Okay so total side note, I know the conversation got all different while I composed a lengthy, serious and heartfelt post that I ultimately declined to post and threw away, but since when can't comedy be directed at...well anything? It was clear Meshugger was being (or attempting to be) funny in his post (apologies to his avatar, I guess, if I misread that situation) and that there was a dogpile in the humor. I understand that people feel differently over the importance/lack of same in real trigger warnings, but... I find the attitude of mocking a convention born from respect for other people's experiences and a desire to not aggravate the trauma they might've suffered utterly disgusting in its self-centeredness. I'm not taking away anyone's liberty to make tasteless jokes, I'm expressing the fact that I'm finding said jokes tasteless. If it makes anyone question why they value their half-second spent on reading a trigger warning more than the emotional pain of, say, a rape survivor whose experiences are still fresh, that's a bonus, but realistically, I don't expect anyone to glean any sort of mystical enlightenment and vow never to make such jokes ever again because of my post.

While this is a considerate intention, I ultimately find the whole thing rather....stupid. Why? Well the fact of the matter is it's unreasonable to expect the world to know about your personalized trauma. I was horrendously depressed about three years ago due to circumstances I bet no one could POSSIBLY expect, nor do I expect people to know how to avoid reminding me of that time. It would be unreasonable of me to expect people to cater to this; no, instead? Instead that was a time of my life where my depression was literally crippling, to the point where just going outside was difficult. I need to be able to cope with that moment and get over it. I need to be able to look at that time in my life and say "yes that was traumatic but I have to live on and keep going," because depression is this sort of cycle where it feeds itself; if you give in to one portion of the cycle you can fall into the whole thing all over again. So while yes, let's say I know someone who was raped, yes I should be courteous and avoid bringing up anything rape-related around her, but at the same time, the reality is people DO report on it, people DO include it in art, people DO use the word liberally when goofing around in various ways, and if she cannot handle that, that itself is a problem. I'm sorry for what she went through, but she needs to be able to move on to an extent. Trust me, I know how heartless that sounds and by no means is moving on easy. If I had the attitude of "just stop crying and move on already," by all means, punch me in the mouth. But no, I'm saying that for as hard as it is or as insensitive claims of "you need to be able to move on," there is a sense of truth to it in the sense that you'll cease to be functional if you let one trauma haunt you all your life. You need to move on, for YOUR sake. It takes time for sure, but it needs to happen. It's a completely reasonable position, but healing happens at its own pace, and there are timeframes when it's just unfeasible to expect someone to move on; likewise, there is no way to predict when someone will read an article, or blog post, or whatever. "Consumers of your stuff who've been raped three days ago" might seem like a small subset of readers, but I'm leery of anyone who considers a half-second long feeling of mild annoyance worse than effectively unavoidable, lasting, considerable emotional turmoil just because the latter only affects a very, very small percentage of people. I mean, utilitarian ethics may teach us that given a sufficiently large number of beneficients, torturing a child to death in order to prevent an extremely large number of people from ever having hiccups is good and moral, but guess what, then I'm not a utilitarian. Overall, you will NOT convince all of humanity to provide "trigger warnings!!!" It's just not happening. A trigger is inevitable, so the only way to handle it is to face them and LEARN to handle them. Yes, friends and family, be courteous and avoid triggering your loved ones. But strangers on the internet...? There's a reason feminism is so unpopular. The unpopularity is exactly due to things like this. Hell, you know what I associate feminists with? The ****ing Spanish Inquisition, because if you don't believe their moral code they'll order you to get it, kill you or torture you. Make no mistake, idealists are generally kind hearted, but extremist idealists? Omfg now there's a group of people that can get a lot of **** started. I would MUCH prefer a bunch of traumatized people learn to face reality and learn to cope with their trauma (however difficult that may be) to having a bunch of ****tard crusaders running around punishing anyone they deem not sensitive enough. I've never met anyone who expected others to plaster any remotely objectionable content with trigger warnings. Seriously, nobody I know wants this. (And I'm fairly convinced I know a lot more people who self-identify as feminists than any of you.) Another useful purpose they serve: if you see that someone has included detailed trigger warnings you find absurd at the start of an article, you can close it with good conscience, because you can already know that whatever their point is, you will disagree with it anyways (therefore saving you the time it would've taken to read the thing in its entirety).

Real witty there, guys. I hope you realize you're making fun of a convention which exists to protect victims of abuse from having to relive sometimes really traumatic memories at the opportunity cost of taking about half a second of your time to gloss over it if it doesn't concern you.

Wow, someone's been socialized on redpill, am I correct?

I've still yet to see how they could possibly gain enough influence to actually affect game development in any tangible way. Until I receive proof that there is actually a way for them to force big publishers to listen to them, I'm going to treat these fears as having zero roots in reality. And if we're all agreeing that there is no proof of their ability to curtail artistic freedom, then people who are throwing around these accusations are basically saying that because they don't like Silverstring & Co's message, they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions. Which is kind of ironic, because I really can't see the big difference between their group desperately wanting to stop developers from making games they don't like while having no power to enforce said desire, and their opponents desperately wanting to stop them making critiques and articles said opponents don't like, while also having no power to stop them. And this is bad because people are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to consume what these journalists put out. I mean, really, "vote with your wallet" is sound advice.

Wow, that was dumb. Was expecting more from you than that. Why do you think it is dumb? He's screaming profanities at the screen about how an industry (in this case, video game journalism) makes profits off him while offering no worthwile products in return and how it's been going on for years now. I'm sorry, but if one continues to feed money to the providers of a service he actively hates, for years after determining how said service is not to his liking, that person is fully deserving of the label "dumb". Amen brother. Still, we didn't need this scandal to see how gaming journalism is rife with nepotism, the complete lack of professionalism they display, or them being talentless hacks. Actually, none of these things have anything to do with the message they're pushing, and I think conflating the two issues serves only as a convenient defense: the journalists involved can point to their detractors and decry them as backwards-dwelling cavemen (or what was the charming expression an enthusiastic young man has used here a few months ago?) who wish nothing more than to obstruct Progress and Justice, while subliterate idiots who can't differentiate between a fresh turd and an actual article can scream about how they totally want Standards and Journalistic Integrity while in reality the only wish they have is to silence any socially conscious critique of their favorite games.

Competent, independent, heroic(-ish, Female Han Solo would be okay). Bonus points if non-sexualized, but not an absolute requirement. 1-Katniss from the Hunger Games 2- Hermione from Harry Potter 3- River Song from Dr. Who 4- Veronica from FalloutNV 5-Daenery from Game of Thrones 6-Tris from Divergent 7-Watson from Elementary 8-Root from Person of Interest 9-Sam from Person of Interest 10-Commander Shepard from Mass Effect Do you want me keep going by format or are you going start complaining now? Wow, you've lost me at River Song aka Girl Whose Entire Existence Revolves Around A Man. (Daenerys also suddenly becomes irrational and incompetent in book 5, Commander Shepard's gender is irrelevant to who s/he is, and I'm unfamiliar with everyone else on the list except Hermione who's indeed a cool character. [My feminist friends like Elementary's Watson, though, so I guess that's 2/10.])

They already did that in Liberation, though, didn't they?

Wow, that was dumb.

Competent, independent, heroic(-ish, Female Han Solo would be okay). Bonus points if non-sexualized, but not an absolute requirement.

Oh please, provide me with 10 examples of good (positive) female characters from popular media in the last 5 years.

Quite likely, but I'd also wager that the number of average healthy males (who'd satisfy your criteria for that label) would also be quite small in proportion to the entire population.

You can believe whatever you like. Yet it was you who proclaimed there is a significant percentage of women that are stronger than anyone here even though as you point out it's the internet and you've got no idea who everyone is. I'm not being unreasonable. How many people proportion wise in the world, men or women, are even athletic above the average reasonably fit person. Small percentage. Among the women in this category how many are even strength or martial arts athletes at all. Tiny, tiny, tiny percentage compared to the whole population. And the percentage that are great at it is even tinier. You're not being unreasonable, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable either when I assume that most people who post here will fit the profile of the average internet user, who's, let's face it, not especially athletic

And since we're on the internet where, if not for my avatar, none of you would know I'm secretly a cat, I'll be generous and assume you also have a 14-inch ****.

I don't find it weird at all. Way I see it, it just proves that in a cultural environment where it's normal for a woman to train for the specific purpose of killing people, there will be women who are at least as good at killing people as their male counterparts. Not very surprising, considering the law of large numbers, really.

Except he took the quote completely out of context. The original went like this (paraphrasing): "There were warrior women in this time period (...) But aren't women significantly weaker than men? Nope! Not in Northern Europe, at that age, at least, judging by their remains."

No it's not. If that was the case then there would be no gender segregation at the Olympics. Women need to have a significant training to be at the level of strength of average male who IS NOT training. Wow, I think this might be among the dumbest things I've ever read. You're saying a woman who does specific strength training will need to invest significant resources in getting to the same level as a man who does no physical training at all. That's not how human bodies work. In that order: true but misleading, right, me neither. Yeah, that's exactly the point I've made a few posts earlier, but it was studiously ignored by everyone involved. (Another important bit to consider is that professional sport, especially at Olympic levels, involves copious amounts of [mostly hormone-based] chemical enhancements. There is a limited amount of male hormone-derived illicit substances one can inject into a woman and still have them retain a recognizably female form.)

I know that you're spending an inordinate amount on arguing over the internet which you're definitely not spending on strength training, so that's a clue Also, had you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see why a/ I don't think "average" is especially relevant to the discussion, b/ the word "average" only appeared in Fighter's post who was vehemently arguing against a point our archeologist friend didn't make. Edit: Which he made in response to TMZuk's post about very specific subpopulations, therefore surely winning some kind of award in Comically Missing The Point.

I'm not denying the conversation took place, I'm denying he had a point. Oh wait, I remember, it was something along the lines of "hurr durr women are genetically weak and denying* it is typical politically correct speech" *read: pointing out how training is a bigger factor in physical strength than gender.

Maybe, but it serves no relevance to the point the person's making, you seem to have trouble with seeing that. ...There was a point they were making? Must have missed that.

I can't believe how you people can be unable to grasp how utterly ridiculous it is to an outside observer when you're running around yelling "women are weaker than men!" while being yourself weaker than a significant percentage of women. Seriously, am I the only one who finds that attitude hilarious?

You guys have chased most of the female members away from the forum Malc. So you are right, the chance of us getting a female perspective is unlikely Bruce, you're being unkind. There are a few productive female forum members around here. Have you thought they might just not be interested in gender politics?

I still find the idea of artistic integrity being threatened by evil feminists in a medium where even a hint of true innovation or creativity is ruthlessly stomped out by big publishers patently ridiculous.

*shrug* Whatever, I'm not exactly an expert on Diablo. I'll take your word on it. What they did not do, however, was actively curtailing the artistic integrity and vision of anyone, and given the fact that they have no power to do so in the current climate, we have no way of knowing what they would do if they had it. I feel justified in extrapolating from the example of a similarly geeky medium where the influence of SJWs (or whatever) is also rearing up its head and has no noticeable effect on what the affected medium is about. I think you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

I don't see how being exact and measured in one's speech could ever be seen as something to avoid. Mathematicians do it all the time, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0 You're demonstrating a callous disregard for facts, you know?