Longknife

Yo, **** those white people being sad about deaths and ****. ****ing racists.

In other news, Jonathan McIntosh recently exposed a hashtag claiming to be in support of the victims of France's recent attacks of actually being about white supremacy: https://twitter.com/adrianchm/status/554782185413439489/photo/1 Thanks McIntosh. Where would we be without your guidance?

It's already up. She made $132 so far. No I'm not joking.

Being ****ing retarded? Spending too much time on twitter? Applying blue dye to her dog? Presenting a horrible company image? Being bad at her job? Daring to speak out against delicious KFC? Having blue hair? Acting like a child? Just pick one. The choice is yours.

And that's why Obsidian pays you. Smart man.

Just popping in to say the blue-haired idiot who labeled Kentucky Fried Chicken as a GamerGate supporter worthy of blocking on an already overzealous and poorly designed block app just lost her job. I supposed you could say she's.... Feelin' Blue. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAH

One of my favorite comedy films:

I watched this horse **** and then determined it would be a good time to brush up on my existentialism studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2PE_bTOKKc

They were also bred to be annoying little ****s in the presence of strange people they've yet to meet.

Take the test http://dogtime.com/quiz/dog-breed-selector Screw that, get a ****er. EDIT: I would just like to point out that the forum's automatic censor just turned an innocent post about C0cker spaniels into a potentially very lewd one about getting a sexually active partner or animal. Dubble Edit: I approve of this quiz. http://dogtime.com/quiz/dog-breed-selector/-9pxtc0isc4uo

Is it? This guy is singlehandedly (well not quite, Volourn goes hand in hand here) responsible for the thread devolving into irrelevant tangent discussions about sex work, and I think you would find that if you polled every person in this thread, more people have had their questions dodged by Bruce than those who have not. And to top it all off, there's the audacity to make the claim he did (the one I was responding to is just ONE example of the same stuff) while not actually ever owning up to or responding to every question he's been faced with. It's hypocrisy, and my gut is screaming "passive aggressive alert, don't bother with this guy cause he knows better." GG has nothing to do with this. I didn't even read your post, I saw the last line. I don't care what the post even says, because quite frankly I'm done discussing things with you period. There's a difference between "sometimes" and "all of the times." You are an "all of the times." I have all the patience in the world for someone who sincerely doesn't understand something or didn't see something. I do NOT have the same patience for someone who, before answering a question, has to walk me through every agonizing step where I first have to throw a giant fit to get their attention, then I have to repeat the question, then I have to CLARIFY the question, and then I finally get a "that makes sense" non-answer that, quite frankly, in no way proves or suggest you even READ my post. And hell, that seems to be the case, no? Because you're claiming to have never seen a big post that was addressed at you. And you claim that every time. The impression is obvious: you do not read or listen to things that don't fit your own mantra, you do not want to have to confront those, and yet you care a whole ****ing lot about your image. So every time someone calls you out on something, you reply, but you reply in the same passive aggressive non-answers that ultimately do nothing. I could write up a giant wall of text right now and the only response would be "excellent points. I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I disagree " without bothering to explain how or why. It's warped, it's messed up, and I - quite frankly - try my best to avoid dishonest people like the plague. I've no idea if you're being dishonest with us or dishonest with yourself, but it all spells trouble to me regardless. But don't worry, I'm not going to tell you to screw off like I once did. I'm going to leave and stop discussing this stuff here, because quite frankly, I'm tired of making a point I consider strong, and then I have to spend a good amount of effort just to tell everyone "hey the stuff Bruce is talking about is pretty irrelevant and he's actively dodging points by bringing up that discussion," only for it to re-occur every ****ing 3 pages. Have fun convincing people prostitution is awful and you care a lot about poor women stuck in sex work even though you also admit to purchasing their services and thereby perpetuate the occupation by providing it with demand. I'll be off trying to find a productive discussion. (bitter irony that video games could provide a SAFE alternative that provides people with a way to get their rocks off while not encouraging an ACTUAL trade that puts women in a bind, which could help break down the very occupation you claim is so toxic while also reducing STD spread. But nah, logic is so 20th century)

Seriously dude, shove it up your ass. I'm sick of your passive aggressive bull****. It's the same every time: non-answers and every attempt made to dodge questions. And now this? I've brought that up to you I dunno HOW many times, and every single time it's "oh I seem to have missed that, can you ask it again?" If you had any interest in a serious debate, you'd make an effort to look yourself. You don't. There's a reason I went quiet when you asked to see those questions again: to see if you'd look them up yourself, (at the time the thread was what, 7 pages?) and you never did. And then you sit here and make these smug remarks. As far as I'm concerned, you don't give two ****s about any serious discussion, you're just interested in being a passive aggressive little pest who seeks to be proven right.

Both sadly, but definitely moreso online and I can definitely agree it's worse there. In real life circumstances I'd actually accept part of the blame just cause I'm not aggressive ENOUGH when I should be. I really hate upsetting people (like it upsets me too) so when someone is adamantly clinging to ignorance in a real life convo, I may not have the heart to really insist they're dead wrong in real life. Online I don't give a **** cause I would hope most people don't lose sleep over online convos. Still, it bothers me cause it's still present in both cases and I see no reason why online would suddenly turn people stupid. I think the reason it's worse online is the exact reason I named: people are more sensitive to each other in real life. Doesn't change that so many people are willingly ignorant though. And just for clarity, no I'm not claiming "I'm right and I'm always right," I simply go with the premise that if I'm wrong, it's possible and easy to prove me wrong. But they keep avoiding the tough points...

It has been a week since I've been able to have a productive debate or discussion with anyone or anything. As a student of law, this depresses the **** out of me. You see, I'm learning quite a bit of practical stuff (at least in Germany) in my studies, but I consider the philosophy behind the studies to be more important. AKA, what's the purpose of a debate, how does it help, how to go about a debate productively, and why one should act in a certain manner while doing so. It's been a week now. I've gotten involved with political discussions, discussions about manners, discussions about video games, discussions about everything. I have not encountered a discussion in a good week without someone immediately tossing me into one of two categories (simple example, Republican or Democrat), holding prejudice against me for it, blatantly failing to see moments where I agree with their "side," and overall acting hostile as **** while presenting an attitude that this person is not here to have a productive discussion where we both enter into it willing to learn, be proven wrong and refine our opinions or takes on matters, but rather as idiots who are intent on "winning" the argument "becuz winning." I saw a study recently....quite proud of myself cause I had the studies' findings as a personal theory for a long time, but the study just validated my thoughts. The study was on fanboyism and why people might cling to brands, for example Marvel vs. DC or Nintendo vs. Microsoft vs. Playstation. The study sought to figure out why fanboyism could end up as passionate as it does. Well, no big surprise, people take that stuff personal. To the same extent that an entrepreneur or investor might consider their company or stock portfolio an extension of their ego, as it validates their ability to make good and intelligent choices to support themselves, fanboys consider their choices in companies an extension of their own ego. As such, if someone is a fan of Nintendo for example and then Nintendo goes bankrupt, they take it personal and consider it a sign that they both make poor choices and have poor taste, and thus are less of a person for it (or less intelligent or popular or whatever). I cannot help but feel this same attitude pollutes debate all too often. It's beyond frustrating for me to go into a discussion with a big clarifier of "BTW, I will admit point 2. is poorly cited so if someone has any information to suggest it's wrong, please say so," and the response is something like I'm an "idiot republican" or whatever because I didn't cite it better...wtf dude that's why I'm there. I'm there to learn. Why NOT present the info to people who'd have an interest in disproving it and thus may already know of sources that contradict it? And I cannot help but feel everyone's interest is always in being proven right, to the point where a LOT of people I've encountered lately shamelessly suggest every issue is binary and has two sides, and their side MUST defeat my side at all costs! As I said, this is depressing as **** for me. I've no idea why. Perhaps it's because this is something that I think can really work and a mindset I've dedicated much of my studies to, but come to find most of the world is illiterate in it. It's very annoying to not be able to get my points across not because I feel I have any difficulty expressing them, but because I get endlessly strawman'ed and tossed into one of two molds that people repeatedly seem to have and believe all deviation from those molds is impossible. I end up repeating myself over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and nothing gets accomplished, because even when I DO finally get my point across - if it's a good one - then suddenly my debate partner has to go, didn't see it, it's "all just like your opinion man," or wants to drop it and talk about something else now. It's so freaking childish to me, and frustrating to watch as I feel I'm watching people stagnate their own personal growth. And worst of all, I feel alone. I've been dogpiled probably thrice now within the past three days, all in very different discussions in different communities, where the moment someone was incapable of countering a point I made, they sought to validate the point for themselves by calling over others who agreed with them to just point at me and discuss what an idiot I am. When I began my studies, I happened across an ad looking for a native english speaker studying German law to come do translation work for a law firm. Thinking the damned sign must've been posted specifically for me, I went and got the job. At the beginning of my studies the head lawyer at the firm told me that when I get into my studies, I will hit a point where I struggle to discuss matters with people who aren't lawyers. It sounded crazy to me and I asked him how that could be, and all he could say was that non-lawyers come off as very disorganized and chaotic in their thoughts during debates. It's about 3 years later now, and I wish he was wrong. But he wasn't, apparently. And as for what triggered this post? I just had a discussion with some anti-GG people (not on this website) who began to dogpile me and call me a dirty GGer while failing to note some points I agreed with them on, then I went and found a discussion amongst GGers, who then proceeded to call me a shill anti-GGer because I suggested GG might be doing something wrong in one specific case, and then I was shouted down without any actual argument presented beyond "nothing you've said makes sense, go away." Both of these convos took place within the past two hours. I swear I'm developing a brain tumor from this. When did we transition from wanting progress to wanting to have our egos stroked and validated?

Seriously though, what's a good website that tracks traffic other websites have gotten? I ask because of this: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/escapistmagazine.com http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/8chan.co http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gawker.com http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ign.com http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com

What a cry baby. "Oh no, Brianna Wu gets money for nothing! She's rich, why should I continue drawing if people give Brianna Wu money for nothing? OH THE INHUMANITY!!!" Get over it whiner. Could you imagine if everyone had her attitude? I'm not rich either. WHY SHOULD I GO ON!? Depresses me all the same because it just feels warped to me that someone who received $200,000 as a gift on their 18th birthday (or 21st? whatever) and lives in one of the most expensive cities in the United States is now making thousands in donations for absolutely nothing. On another note, anyone know a good website for checking how much traffic a website has gotten?

This got me depressed all day: http://imgur.com/5MCp9WG

No it is related because it aligns to several SJ concepts This topic first came about when GTA V was banned. Please look at your calendar to see when that was. It has been over a month. You have had ample time to make your point. If you are incapable of making your point within a month's time, it's probably not a very strong or direly important point to begin with. All you are doing now is crowding out any ability to have ANY other discussion relevant to GamerGate, which I consider quite rude. I also proposed two questions to you several pages ago, both of which were blatantly ignored because they do not neatly align with your narrative you wish to solicit.

Am I REALLY the only person who considers sex work to be very very VERY much off-topic from GamerGate, and the only one whose absolutely shocked at how many people allow Bruce to continue to derail the thread so we can continue having a discussion we've had four times already?

Remember that time anti-GG said they "improved" Vivian James by making her aryan and making her more polished and beautiful. Dat wuz funni

ICE CWEAM

Although correct in the "specific definitions and history" side (so essentially, completely correct), modern usage of sex-positive and sex-negative as a term regarding feminists is closer to "likes sexy stuff and is open-minded" and "puritanically hates sexy stuff" respectively. At least, that's how it's used by all the idiots on both sides in the context of the #GamerGate debate anyway (I've already had this discussion with some of them). Essentially if you think Bayonetta is a sexy power fantasy, you're sex-positive and if you think women are only sexy to attract men and therefore Bayonetta oppresses women, then you're sex-negative. Neither side in #GamerGate seems to be smart enough to care about specific definitions so it's kindof colloquially grown into that. Everyone on the internet seems to be really stupid. Which is exactly why I keep saying it's a detriment to keep carrying the feminist title. Meanings of words change. Society gives words their meaning and connotation, and yes, feminism is starting to garner a very very negative connotation, with the lines of various branches of feminism becoming blurred. You can see it, I can see it, we all can see it, so I don't quite understand why people like Sommers and Sarkeesian insist on carrying the same title as the other. They're also both guilty of helping the lines becoming blurred in that both simply want to be "feminists" and do not make it habit to name their specific branch of thought. Mind you I'm not saying "what ****ty people!" No that's completely understandable and natural that they'd wanna shorten it, but long-term it does blur lines. And whether you think people who don't understand the true definitions are idiots or not, it would be a grave mistake to discredit their interpretations and cling to the true interpretation, because then you'll misunderstand the context of what most people are trying to say. No, you NEED to be in tune with the misunderstood definitions, and this is EXACTLY how society governs and changes definitions and connotations over the course of time. Yes, if we wish to catalog the old interpretations for history's sake, then the old meanings are still important, but in the interest of debate on this topic and others we see today...? I daresay the "idiot's" definitions are more relevant to the discussions.

Are we seriously going to continue having this same conversation over and over and over and over? Guys, we've had this convo like four times now and it has jack all to do with all the recent (and in my opinion more interesting) news of corruption. Hell, it has very little to do with GamerGate either as it's kind of a tangent of a tangent.