Longknife

I broke my record on Heavy. 61 kills, 23 assists, 8 dominations, 11,785 damage and 104 points in a single life. My life has meaning now.

You take that back, sir! My muscle Wizard, Bolt VanderHuge, is feared across the lands for being able to slaughter hordes of beetles and spiders at a time with his Hello Kitty spellbook.

This is the only context in which you will ever see a human being complain about a spider not getting back up.

Clearly you never hired an high class expensive ones. And you can ask anybody hookers cost less then a girlfriend and you have more sex. Win - win situation, you save money and have more sex. It's definitely not something for everyone. Intimacy is a real thing, and for some people (myself included) a lack of intimacy is a big no. It feels weird as **** partaking in intimate actions with someone I'm not intimate with. (and before anyone asks, no I've not hired a hooker, merely went to some of those stupid parties college kids do where you have to make out with so and so or get a lapdance from so and so) Anyways, I agree with Walshingham's sentiment. I think you're equating "I'm alone on Christmas" with "nobody loves me," which would be a mistake. I was alone on Christmas too, doesn't mean jack. My parents live across the Atlantic (and I prefer it that way), my only family here is an uncle who's cool but has issues with stress and likes to disappear from time to time (which I respect, I know the feeling of wanting to escape) and I was invited to a friend's Christmas dinner but politely declined cause quite honestly I've done it before and I feel out of place. Solitude can be fun. One year I had to walk to a friend's house for Christmas when the buses weren't running, had to go through a town of 160,000 while it was dead silent. Was actually pretty neat to see the city so dead. Only people in town were some Chinese tourists who were FUKN AMAZED by this tacky Christmas light reindeer display some business had up for some reason. Ended up helping those tourists take pictures equally as amazed by all the random things that amazed them (still have NO idea what's so amazing about a Christmas light reindeer, and it's made even funnier by the fact they missed our quirky lingerie-and-coffee store that's always being named one of the best businesses in town), and honestly I wish I could do THAT again. It may sound very simple, but I dunno. Happening across those guys and giving them an opportunity to all be in their vacation photos together seemed like a nice Christmas-y gesture, and it was entertaining just to see the cultures clash and all the weird **** that amazed them. Another year it was just me and this one depressed guy at a bus stop, both going to a friends. He wasn't taking it well, like you, and felt worthless and unloved and explained his parents were dead and his dad was always rather hard on him. I just kinda chatted with him and explained my dad hates my guts too, but you can't let it get you down cause you're your own person, and some parents just aren't able to cope with that. He actually seemed very cheered up by that and even moreso when I explained I was half-American, cause as it turned out, teaching HIMSELF english and paying attention to British and American culture was his hobby. He started trying some english on me and we discussed english grammar (I tutor it a lot) and his english was actually really really good for being self-taught. (best I've encountered, actually) When I told him this, it made his day. Could just tell, he was freaking BEAMING. Anyways point I'm trying to make is you are NOT the only person alone on Christmas, and I think you only feel sad and that much more lonely because society presents this image you should not be alone on Christmas. Don't let that bother you, plenty of people are and plenty relate to the stress you feel. Take comfort in knowing that and just try to enjoy the solitude + free day off.

I learned Chris-Chan has been arrested and faces felony charges that could lead him to face 1-5 years of jail time. Then I learned DSPGaming's channel and community are basically sinking as fast as the russian ruble's value. Then I realized that 2014 is the year Jesus walks the Earth again, we just haven't found him or realized it yet. Irregardless, thanks Jesus. Stay awesome.

I will confess that despite law studies basically teaching you to praise debate as this massive problem solving tool, GamerGate is wearing on me in the sense that for the first time ever, I'm encountering a group of people I consider hopeless and a blatant waste of time to try and debate with. My mother can be pretty...hysterical, during fights? Very quick to accuse you of insulting her or exaggerating things you never even said to ridiculous degrees, and for that reason I don't even BOTHER arguing or fighting with my mom. (for example I once got accused of calling my own mother an idiot and not having any trust in her and being a terrible son because I trusted a phone service worker who claimed our internet would be back on when we got home whereas she thought the worker was lying to us. It wasn't a simple "ok we'll check but if I was right I'm rubbing it in," it was a "How DARE you trust a random stranger more than me and accuse me of being an idiot" even though all I said was "let's just go home and check before causing a ruckus") Hell, usually ignoring her outbursts results in her apologizing. And while I could expect that from a random person like my mom, to see that kind of attitude to feel THIS common amongst an entire group is disheartening. I think you can learn a lot from any area of study at a university, and I think what law teaches is fairness and how to go about with a healthy discussion. It's very sad to watch THIS many people basically treat those lessons as mere fairy tales. Oh and before anyone asks, not accusing the anti-GG people of these (Obsidian) forums of being like that. Part of the reason I can say all this openly is because it luckily doesn't apply here.

I'll be quite interested to read the second part of that article, to see if it comes to the same general conclusion I have. While I don't really like the Cultural Marxism label I do think there is a fair bit of 'Cultural Stalinism' which explains why you have two predominantly left leaning groups fighting each other. Stalin was about as much concerned- if not more so- with fighting the wrong sort of leftist as with fighting rightists, and with purging those who were disloyal or ideologically impure leftists. That is pretty much what antiGG is about, purging the wrong sorts of left leaning people so only proper thinkers remain. Not up to the kulaks or mass graves level though of course, except in some of their dreams. Stalin was also a big proponent of sweet moustaches, which ultimately led to his quarrel with Hitler over which style was superior. Source:

You are taking to a brick wall dude. Remember, Ghazi's sole purpose is to sling poop, talking to them just gets you dirty. I would be lying if I said I didn't agree to an extent, but I also believe that if we don't TRY every so often, then we both cannot expect **** to change and we'd become just as guilty of being brick walls. I also like to think that sometimes these people may not see what I'm saying immediately, but maybe in a year's time they'll remember a comment I made and it'll help them come to terms with something faster. Lastly, I consider people who may read from the sidelines. If I make an honest effort to communicate and discuss things civilly and I get called scum for it...well, guess who walks away with a better reputation. But yeah the AgaGalneer person in particular is just an awful stereotype of what GamerGhazi is. It's both sickening and saddening to see a person like that actually exists.

This is unbearably sad.... Having a discussion with some Gamerghazi people. Here: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2qpfuj/gamerghazi_and_the_losing_battle_they_fight_as/ I'm AFlyingNun. I should be the top comment to the top comment (aka the second comment I guess? Freaking reddit layout). Just go down the list of replies to my comment and read. Be sure to open anything condensed by a [+] cause those are actually the convos I'm talking about. I -THINK- the Ghazis must be getting downvoted but dunno cause their scores don't show. But yeah I just feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Two have not responded to points I made and disappeared after I made them, another one is basically just calling me scum for no apparent reason. And in case anyone gets lost, here: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2qpfuj/gamerghazi_and_the_losing_battle_they_fight_as/cn8d6bk Read the comment chain with AgaGalneer for the person just calling me scum.

Perhaps people can suggest nominees and we can take a vote. But I'm still convinced any video with over-exaggerated animations and a song that encourages people to twerk for Jesus is just a downright unbeatable combination. This could be runner-up though:

I ate a bagel. It was awesome.

Not GG related, but Malala Yousafzai is a badass. Indeed. She's absolutely right in everything she says ("they shoot me because they're scared of me") and sadly, if anyone is truly doing work for women, it's her. No contest, it's her. But many people don't even know her name...

That exact post was me ASKING for info, so that I could understand it and better look into it. I now know the answer to that, but quite frankly as I recall part of my criticism then was "all feminists prefer to call themselves feminists and not their specific subset and this causes confusion and reflects POORLY on the movement as a whole," and I still stand by that, because that's STILL exactly what it does. I see no purpose in someone like Sommers clinging to the title as "feminism" is quickly adapting a negative connotation, and all she's doing is slowing herself down in that some people may hear she's a feminist and not hear her out because of it. She could alternatively adopt a new title entirely, let feminism burn and get much more serious treatment from everyone. Just for clarity, my post had the point of "you are basically arguing you cannot criticize Neo-Nazis until you read their various works and books they hold dear, including Mein Kampf." No, I'm saying that the argument of "you need to educate yourself more" is a fallacy in and of itself because it is very easy to ALWAYS claim someone has not educated themselves enough. I can never, ever ever prove that I have read every meaningful piece of literature on a subject matter because someone can always claim there's another work or opinion out there somewhere. If you truly wish to make that criticism, it is YOUR responsibility to tell me what I'm ignorant of and teach me. You do not get to say "nope ur ignorant, shutup" and then not answer the question of "how am I ignorant?"

It should be expected you've actually done some proper investigation of the subject in order to properly critique it or question its legitimacy. They have in the aforementioned hundreds of thousands of woks of feminist literature. Your wilful ignorance is not their fault. I am critiquing the parts of feminism I know and the parts I've seen as they attempt to suggest overhauls of systems we know, as the expressed methodology they've presented seems flawed to me. Likewise, again with your same logic, one is not allowed to question the existence of God until one has read the entirety of the Bible from start to finish as you can claim "all the answers are there, your willful ignorance is not God's fault." You can say the same with Neo-Nazis and their works alongside Mein Kampf. There is a reason the burden of proof and the responsibility of explaining oneself and defending one's stance comes into play the moment a group attempts to change a system. It is unreasonable to expect everyone ELSE to drop all of their important work to go study up on the important work of another group just because group B is now suggesting a system overhaul. No, you want the change? Sell it in a way anyone can understand, highlight important parts. Put it in layman's terms. Also, is it just me or has Barothmuk not posted a SINGLE argument that did not involve some sort of ridiculous hyperbole?

Well instead of shouting into the wind hoping that some homogenous blob called Feminism™ will give you the single "correct" feminist answer you actually go out and investigate.And not just skimming a Wikipedia article or just some teenager's tumblr but actually reading any of the hundreds of thousands of works of feminist literature. That's not how it works, If I question the legitimacy of philosophy, of sociology, of psychology or any other major, their students and professors can explain to me what they do without me needing to study a two year (minimum) program to answer that. Let's hear the proponents of feminism defend it. The burden of proof is on them and part of their ability to utilize the knowledge they've gained is tested in the ability or inability to explain important portions of it to us. I've also actually done some studies of English literature. Here's something funny: my very first term paper for that course involved writing about a classical work of literature and re-assessing it in some new way that was mine while also building off of various schools of thought. One of the easiest schools of thought was feminism, and I actually wrote my paper about feminism. Why? Because it was a **** assignment. It asked for us to interpret a classical work in our own, new way, while failing to address that we simply cannot do that if we're limited to somehow involving EXISTING interpretations of the works, nor does it address the reality of the fact that 500 year old stories have probably been discussed to death already at this point with absolutely nothing new left to add. So I took Macbeth and applied feminism to it because it was the only easy solution for an easy grade. That semester of that course remains THE semester and course where I felt like I learned absolutely nothing. The only thing that semester and course did for me was acknowledge that I was right to believe every single word in a work of literature must be taken seriously and with purpose, as the author includes things for a reason, one must assume. But I had figured that out on my own without the help of the course beforehand. Was much happier to hit the culture studies the following semester when we were given much more freedom in what to cover and how to interpret it, but I can tell you there was a staggering number of people who covered feminism that semester, and not because we were big proponents of it, but because it was the easy grade. It feels like feminism is just in this position where it justifies itself by inventing reasons or ways to keep existing. Also, apparently this professor regularly gets harassed cause now my recommended list is filled with it: No, I'm saying that through my own life experiences, I know something positive can come as a direct result of the disability, so it seems ill-advised to tamper with it and do away with it based on those experiences. That's why I draw a parallel to, say you get made fun of in school for being ugly. If you can wave a magic wand and change that, ok you're attractive now, but you missed an opportunity to develop a great sense of humor. It's quid pro quo, but I often have difficulty explaining this because people often want to argue you can, for example, be attractive and still develop a great sense of humor, and while that's certainly true, it's a "dream concept" where you're basically just expecting it to happen magically or with minimal effort when the reality is who you are is built upon the proper life experiences, and without the proper opportunities, the latter quality won't happen. Case and point, I may offend some people here but I find a woman who can make me laugh to be as rare as a motherf***ing unicorn. I attribute this partly to the fact that boys are far more likely to bully and tease one another than girls are and thus the average male child is given more opportunities to develop a sense of humor than female children. (as well as the fact that women in comedy are already rare, so much like a disabled comedian may build much of his material around his disability, a woman may build her comedy around her gender, which is unfortunate for them since **** jokes are already the go-to material for loser comedians with nothing witty to say)

Not to derail or anything, but I really don't get this, I personally do consider trans people the gender they were born as, regardless of what they would prefer having been born as, even more irrespective of whether they've gotten their genitals scrambled up, but nonetheless I don't understand this. It feels to me like refusing electricity, tools, or clothing. Adaption includes altering yourself, or creating/purchasing tools, to make stuff easier/more entertaining/whatever, sure, if the leg was nonfunctional I'd agree it's stupid, and I do feel it'd be silly getting an extra leg because you selfidentify as a guy with two legs, but I feel there is one very good and valid reason to get another leg if the option was hypothetically available, it'd no doubt make legbased activities quite easier. Rejecting it because it wasn't a part of you at birth just seems odd, if you wouldn't mind, I'd be legitimately interested in hearing the arguments for such a stance, it's not really a viewpoint I've ever had much disclosure to. Better analogy: Small boobs? Should you go get a boob job or find other ways to attract people? I typically find fake boobs to be a turn off. Not because I've got a problem with the look or feel (never felt), but because it says something about the personality where that person likely looked in the mirror and said "you're right world, there's something wrong with me I should change." Alternatively...for example, what's something comedians often have in common? They were bullied. They were bullied and adapted by developing a sense of humor. With the above example with boobs, I say you can adapt to less impressive looks (if this sounds insensitive or something, it's probably cause I just dunno what to word it as. Sorry) with a more charming personality or what-have-you. I for one believe my disability to be a part of me in the sense that it helped shape who I am and my personality. To change that just feels wrong to me out of principle. There's a common misconception Charles Darwin said "survival of the fittest," or the misconception is what the fittest actually is. Well he actually elaborated in a more detailed speech that was anything but "survival of fittest herpderp," and explained that what he meant was the one that's most capable of adapting to their scenario is the strongest. I often feel like people consider me automatically weaker by Darwin's standards or something and I've even had a girl turn me down on the grounds of "genetics." Thing is, by his very definition, Stephen Hawking is far more adapted to his environment than we ever will be, cause he (or rather his genetics) recognized intelligence - not physical capacity - is the key to surviving and flourishing in today's society. In that sense, arguing for the surgery cause "better" seems moot. I'm also kind of big on things like the basics of Taoism and "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Taoism, if you didn't know is basically the Yin Yang symbol. The Yin Yang represents that for every action, there is both a positive and negative result. For example, Hitler killed millions of jews. The largest portion of this is bad as people with thoughts and ideas and stories and experiences are now gone and lost forever. However, there's also the speck of good within it as there is always a speck of good (or bad) in everything. In this case that speck of good might be that that act and the entirety of WWII would reduce the world population, and overpopulation is a serious issue that acts as a catalyst for other issues. You can take this same philosophy of Taoism and basically recognize that good can be achieved from anything. It's all quid pro quo. And lastly, yeah, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. As a result of my leg I have better upper body strength, I've got pretty agile hands and nimble fingers (I've actually both picked a lock and picked a pocket before. No worries, the first was only to get inside a classroom building early from freezing weather, the latter was only to avoid a scolding from an ass of a father who was looking forward to yelling at me for not having something) and my pain tolerance is through the roof due to all the surgeries I've undergone combined with my morphine allergy. (don't let anyone tell you the painkiller alternatives to morphine are just as good. They're f***ing not). And as a final argument....Let's say tomorrow you became God, and you could do anything you wanted to change the world, and you, AS A GOOD HUMAN BEING, want to make the world a better place. What would you do? When I ask myself this I have no idea, because I recognize quid pro quo and that, if I solved hunger problems in Africa for example, I'd be escalating overpopulation, which thereby escalates other issues like Climate Change. You simply cannot understand the importance or relevance of everything, and even a well-intentioned change can be terrible. That's sort of what the idea of giving myself another leg is like, too. It feels like playing God or "toiling in God's domain." I don't mean that from a religious perspective like that it would legitimately anger God, I use "God" only as a placeholder for "the natural order of things." I recognize I can gain and lose things from such a change and I recognize that, had I had two legs from birth, I may not have the sense of humor, the pain tolerance, the adversity to assistance and the hobbies I have today. I'd be a different person. In that same regard, who am I to judge that the me that accepts such a surgery/change would be better than the me that refuses it? I'd rather opt to remain who I am and see what the natural, unaltered me is capable of and what I'll become.

I'm not going to debate this point directly because I think this is one of those things that's all about perspective and can be twisted both ways, good and bad. For example a colorblind person doesn't discriminate, but can also be guilty of not recognizing a situation for what it is; I've encountered people who claim to be colorblind and therefore would deny some efforts in the name of minority groups because they didn't agree with or perceive inequality, or they felt any unequal treatment was bad (helpful included) while denying the reality of unequal treatment already. Meanwhile a non-colorblind person can discriminate but may prove more capable of seeing a situation for what it is objectively and handling it more appropriately. Sure enough with your example, one can debate if that is TRULY an issue of oppression or degradation (pro-tip: some women like such depictions as seen on the guy's shirt) and whether the true issue isn't professional victimization. There's no clear answer. Another example, Amentep above mentioned teachers might call on men more for science and math classes. This for me, based on my personal experiences, is absurd. If we go by my personal experiences, I've had a lot of old dude teachers who called on the hot girls cause they wanted to "flirt" with them, and the hot girls got the most attention from the teachers by far. The female teachers actually called on the male students more, come to think of it... Anyways, because of my personal experience, I am more or less "colorblind" to if women or men can participate in STEM or if one of them is better or what-have-you. I don't see an issue and I feel both are welcome, and as such, some would consider me of being inobjective and not properly recognizing an issue they consider to be there, and as such might provide better work towards fixing the alleged issue. But the reason I quote you is this: I would argue the very act of trying to argue who is MOST colorblind or MOST morally absolute is part of the problem. I feel like much of the SJW aspects we've encountered involve competitions to see who can be the MOST accepting and the BEST, MOST morally righteous crusader. It's....blinding, to the degree where those that are perceived as the most morally right have the Word of God. Case and point: remember when that anti-GG girl got harassed for trying to talk to GamerGate and start a dialog? Then the moment Wu said she wasn't a shill, the harassment came to a screeching halt? Yeah, that. That's the end result of this focus on who is MOST insert-fancy-title-here: the "winners" of that competition become dictators (not neccesarily conciously or intentionally, nor are they neccesarily aware of their status and influence), and their word is law. Anita could, for example, accuse Carls Jr. of being sexist tomorrow on the most ridiculous circumstances imagineable, and I promise you the SJWs would declare Carls Jr an enemy and say no one should eat there. This also has bad effects to the point where blatant bullsh*t gets serious treatment. I don't recall if I posted this here or not (could possibly dig the thread up if anyone's interested, but might take a bit), but a while back a transgender person posted on the KiA subreddit to basically just rant about how they felt alone and stressed. Why? All of the support groups for trans people were infested with fakers. They would go to these support groups (some online) trying to discuss the science and the facts, and there'd always be some idiot claiming to be the most special snowflake and that all the science and facts and methodology doesn't apply to them, and that what the trans person was saying is offensive to them. In a nutshell, trans groups - according to this person - had devolved into tumblr. It was actually a pretty off-topic post for KiA and basically the trans person crying for help and trying to reach out to another trans person who wasn't....yknow, full of sh*t? I remember the post because the person used a ton of vocabulary I didn't understand and was completely unfamiliar with, so I asked trying to make sense of it because I initially understood the accusation was that trans support groups are infested with idiots who aren't even trans, but just trying to be the most special snowflake. I thought that sounded absolutely f***ing ridiculous so surely I had misunderstood and asked for clarity on the matter....then they confirmed trans support groups are infested with attention seeking idiots trying to be the specialist snowflake. FURTHERMORE, I ended up having a convo with two trans people in that thread about how I've long had difficulty understanding the trans community. In a nutshell, I was born with one leg and I believe who you are is like the hand you were dealt in poker. ANY hand can work if you play well enough, you just need to adapt properly. As such, even if an operation existed right now to give me a second leg? I would not take it (only circumstance I would is if I was somehow a specialty and they needed someone SPECIFICALLY like me to test the new science on). It feels weak to me to do so. Well...trans people attempt to switch their gender. Gladly. And they do so in such a way that...dude, you can't switch. It's just not possible. It'll always be fake, and as a guy, I can tell you transgender women have not and will not ever fool me. My hormones say "NOPE, dude." So for me I long had difficulty understanding the trans community because it was at odds with my own philosophy. All the respect in the world for them as they deserve basic human rights and respect like everyone, but I was still at odds. It wasn't until I personally had a friend or two who SUDDENLY SWITCHED GENDER after years or months of no contact and I witnessed people attempting to bully or harass them over it that I realized I don't care enough about my disagreements with it, I care more about those people being jerks about it. Since then I've never really thought on the issue much and just "accept" it in that I don't think on it or challenge the methodology. I brought that up to the trans people of that thread and was told I provided one of the most respectful, honest and genuine treatments on the subject matter they ever received, was thanked for my insights and then we chatted a bit. In short: my point is people should be honest with themselves. If someone comes up to you and says they're a trisexual half-wolf asian and you think they're full of sh**, tell them they're full of sh**. Don't feel pressured to accept people because acceptance = superior. No, that's not true. Acceptance of lies is not superior. Acceptance of terrible priorities - where a man can land a probe on a meteor and we treat him like crud for wearing a tacky shirt his female friend gave him - is not superior. Don't deal in absolutes. Let's stop feeling sooooooooooooooooo f***ing pressured into being all accepting of everything and everyone and be honest with ourselves. I would hope everyone knows basic human respect should be applied to everyone....but respect and criticism are not mutually exclusive. I can respect a person while also accusing them of being full of ****. I can respect a person while telling them their priorities are terrible. And in doing so, I partake in actions I myself can still be proud of while still being true to myself and respecting honesty and the truth. One last story (hell yeah, ****ing wall of text time): When I was 14, I saw a documentary on that Valkerie mission (I think) to assassinate Hitler. They wanted to recreate the scene realizing the suitcase bomb was moved behind a table leg, and they wanted to see if - had it not been moved over - would Hitler have died. Tons of scientists on the job, a couple old military officers, both German and American, they recreate the room, run the test and.... Hitler would've died had someone not hit the suitcase bomb over after hitting it with their foot. A table leg saved Hitler. So after they come to this realization, everyone is understandably depressed as ****. One of the German officers, in a...flawed (bare with him) attempt to cheer people up, says there's good reason Hitler survived: because he believed, having lived through that time and having experienced his life experiences, that had Hitler died on that day, he would've gone down as one of Germany's greatest leaders. He believed that was a time Hitler's full intentions weren't known, and even if they became known, they'd've been denied by the public at large. Mind you, whether the death of six million Jews is worth Hitler's rep? Yeah, pretty flawed, but that's not my focus. His experiences are also debateable, but again, not my focus. That documentary changed my life. Why? Because it blew my mind to think that the guy that's thought of as evil incarnate could've possibly died a hero. It blew my mind that the truth could make that drastic of a difference in how a person is remembered. I came to realize that if I myself am not truthful in who I am, history will never know me. My friends will never know me. They'll only know a story I've concocted, and whether or not I myself am a likeable human being would remain a mystery until I reach my deathbed. Only through pure honesty with who I am can I have that answer. Since then? I've been truthful. I'll say the truth and I'll say what's on my mind even if it's not pleasant. What is the difference between myself and a tumblroni who both doubt the existence of trisexual half-wolf asians? What is the difference between myself and an anti-GG who finds Shirtgate ridiculous but keeps quiet about it? I voice my opinion on it. That's it. That's essentially the only difference. That is the only variable in the whole equation. And that variable - voicing my opinion - is why I might be subject to criticism. And by all means, to those truly offended by Shirtgate, voice that criticism and accept whatever judgement people cast upon you proudly, for it is who you are. I only voice this concern because I cannot help but feel being accepting of people has become a god damned competition. I struggle to believe that many people care that deeply about a shirt, but I've seen for myself (as have we all) how the "heroes" of equality and acceptance can either spark an attack or silence harassment with but a word, whether they intend to do so or not. It often feels like this desire to be the "MOST-something" only sparks dictators whose word is revered as the word of God, whether those "dictators" are aware of their influence or not. tl;dr No **** you, go read it. Lazy ass.

I'll fill in. For funzies. Can you believe those ****ing scumbag cops making a civilian waste expensive ammunition on them? We truly are living in an oppressive police state where you cannot even discipline your woman properly without getting arrested.

How many women do you know working in STEM? Is that STEM's fault? This. I attribute this more to the fact that women simply don't seem interested in such fields of study. I can hear the feminists arguing "that's cuz patriarchy culture!!!" Let me ask this: what damage does it do to us as a society if women prefer sciences such as psychology or biology over ones like computer sciences and physics/engineering. Yes, diversity helps when collecting ideas. That's why minorities tend to get priority for picks at universities (one of the reasons). But that men and women enjoy different areas of study is simply a fact of life, whether it be culturally or genetically. I for one do not see a purpose in crying about the low gender quotas - especially when the exact same can be said for men in other fields of study (where I live the psychology classes are typically 28 women and 2 men while physics are the opposite) - until we can show why and how this gender "issue" is actually hurting or hindering us as a society. I could ask that same question of feminism as a whole: how do sexualized women (scandidly clad women, prostitutes, porn stars etc) hinder or harm society? That question often seems skipped over when they begin chanting about how we need to do away with those ideas and those depictions of women.

Meh, some writer. Let us know when someone with a useful profession chimes in with outrage on the behalf of other people to show his Social Concern cred. GTFO writers are awesome. FFS I think of Avellone moreso as a writer than a developer just cause he's damned good at the job. No need to hate on the entire profession for one idiot.

F*** that news, horsesh*t, IS DAT SUM CHOPPER DAVE???

I actually don't see the issue in the sense that I see the disgust with both issues quite clearly. I think people get disgusted by cruel things being done to animals because in the case of an animal, there is absolutely nothing the animal could've possibly done wrong to have deserved such treatment. It's blatant cruelty for the sake of cruelty and a form of bullying in regards to something that is more or less helpless to resist you. Subjectively this is more disgusting because the act itself is seemingly inexcuseable and requires less empathy than even torture. With torture on the other hand there will always be people arguing it's justified. Like it or not, this is what happens, and the torturer could tell themselves that their torture victim, for example, is guilty of killing hundreds of their countrymen and therefore torture is "justified" in that the victim fully deserves such treatment and such pain. However, objectively the things a torture victim must endure are absolutely insane and far worse than most instances of animal cruelty. This is also why, in my opinion, you'll see people go absolutely ape**** when the subjective cruelty of animal cruelty and the objective cruelty of torture get combined into some idiot microwaving a kitten or something for fun, resulting in the entirety of the internet basically going "yo **** that guy" and taking the gloves off, doxxing, harassing and sending the cops after them with nobody ever complaining about it possibly being "going too far." In short, I understand both the people complaining animal stories get more love than human stories and the people who care about the animal stories cause I think it's two sides of the same coin. Animal stories typically involve absolute subjective cruelty as the animal is undeniably innocent or helpless, torture stories often involve objective cruelty as what the victim must endure is drastically worse. Having said that, I thought torture was universally condemned at this point....? Last story I heard a torture bill was being shot down thanks to the typical stance of liberals on the matter combined with first-hand experience of torture from people like John McCain. But yeah, I don't exactly consider torture to be "popular" or supported. And slightly off topic, but the torture that REALLY ticks me off...? The types of torture where they blast music in the victim's ears round the clock, or a person is left alone in a room for days with minimal human social contact (if any) which quite literally can fry a person's brain. (we're social creatures, so having zero contact drives you nuts) Those stories are insanely cruel to me, though it's probably not hard to get the people involved to agree to the torture since they're not having to actively do anything cruel and it's more passive, with them never experiencing the headphones strapped to their heads or the sheer isolation and thus having difficulty empathizing as easily.

The difference being a dog will beg you for another salty chip and by no means do anything to suggest it's bad for them, but loathe being covered in dye.

Stay awesome, TF2: