Longknife

Need to call someone soon so just responding to these two since they're quick, and I'll respond to the rest later: Nor was I suggesting it was. Social darwinism has multiple meanings and stances; hell, Darwinism itself is often misintepreted with people applying various definitions to "fittest" while Darwin meant "that most capable of adapting to the setting." Social darwinism has at time fueled the idea of eugenics for example, which is absolute nonsense as that denies a person the opportunity to adapt, and therefore it reflects society being bigoted rather than seeking out the fittest. I meant it in a sense that I consider Darwin's teachings to be a part of reality. Things survive and thrive where they do because they adapted to their setting best. It's as simple as if you know you've got a corrupt boss who promotes people based on his personal opinion of them and you know he's a big fan of basketball, you are best adapted to your workplace if you slime your way up and talk him up about basketball for a promotion. Does that mean you're best suited for the job? No, but in the context of that company you are more adapted to the workings of the company than your co-workers who don't get promoted. What I was highlighting is how (and again I'm not saying trying to rebel against a social structure is universally bad) many of the times these feminists involved with GG speak up, it merely sounds as though they're whining about something they don't like while incapable of accepting things they don't like do exist. Oftentimes what we get are nothing but complaints rather than working plans to fix it. It's akin to there being a delicious orange at the top of a tall tree, and instead of working up a plan to get that delicious orange, they whine, point at it and proclaim what bull**** it is that we cannot get the delicious orange. Adapt. Get used to eating berries instead, come up with a working plan to get the orange. Do SOMETHING. Instead they often seem to want to just have it handed to them, OR their only solution is to cut down the tree that grew the orange in such a way that will crush the nearby berry bush. I consider the solutions (or lack thereof) childish and a sign they've failed to adapt to society. We've all had that painful moment where we realize the world isn't perfect and has injustices, but we move on. They apparently don't, and in their complaints, even partake in some injustices of their own. Perhaps they HAVE adapted, but adapted in the sense they learned to copy all the unfair aspects they so loathed... But point is that overall, and this next part/question and the bolded below is relevant to this: Then what exactly is the point and goal of feminism? If it's not for universal improvement, why bother? It's essentially an opinion on how to improve things for a very specific group of people. Spoiler alert: every group of people on planet earth has an opinion on how to improve things for their own group of people, but we do not adopt said opinions until they prove overwhelmingly helpful. As I said before, many feminist views will hinder as many people as they help or merely move the problems onto the shoulders of another group. And yet there's this entitled attitude. There's this entitled attitude that anyone who disagrees with their opinion is wrong and needs to change who they are. This is seriously out of touch with reality as it's so self-centered, egotistical and doesn't seem to acknowledge the reality of how much of a pipe dream that is that all of society would suddenly change themselves to match their opinion UNLESS provided with good arguments. But they do not provide good arguments. They spout slander and call people names and expect that to change people's minds. That's exactly why I refer to them as childish, spoiled, entitled and incapable of adapting, because the very plan they utilize is so outrageously out of place it's absolute MADNESS to think it would work. And once again just for clarity, I'm referring to the feminist group GG and/or Shirtgate is encountering, as that's the group this is relevant to. Emma Watson for example is a proud feminist but she's done nothing wrong so I have no reason to apply any of this to her, and likewise Sommers is a feminist who directly opposes this group of feminism I'm attacking.

Excellent article. Excellent post.

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ms8zo/large_publications_time_guardian_et_al_condemn/

I LIKE TYPING THO. C: You know what amazes me is psychologists did a study and found that BDSM, bondage and rape fantasies were actually very very common? It amazed me not so much because of the study, but because apparently the DSM-V classifies these as "sexually deviant" behavior and labels them as abnormal. Really amazed me to hear the DSM-V, the authority on all things psychology, was blissfully unaware that those might be the most common fetishes on earth. It's like wtf happened and when did people stop talking to other people to get information? When did we hit the point where actually polling people and just asking them was fancy enough to be considered a "study?" If that's the case I've been conducting a "study" for almost 10 years now, and I'm happy to say my study correlates well with theirs and reinforces their findings. Oh, and I've also heard 50 Shades is horrendously written (some claiming worse than Twilight) so that only reinforces that the sex is what sells that book, imo.

Erm...you are aware both of those are pretty common fetishes? Not saying ALL women like them or that the site is amazing (I'm unfamiliar with it), just not clear based on the context of your post if you're finding it horrible that they encourage guys to just start choking women without discussion or if you find the act itself disgusting or the suggestion most women are submissive to be disgusting. If it's the latter, I got some bad news for you. There's a lot of wild fetishes out there that don't seem to make sense and yet people are fond of them. Likewise, as someone who's fascinated with psychology, sex and sex psychology, I actually very FREQUENTLY discuss kinks with female friends, and I daresay 90% of them are submissive, another 8% are either and maybe 2% are dominant. That's sort of why I was at odds with feminism even beforehand and before Gamergate: because plenty of women are perfectly happy with their position in life and would only be annoyed by feminism trying to "save them." For clarity when I say "position in life," I mean some women do enjoy being housewives, A LOT of women really really enjoy the feeling of being protected by a man, but those same women would of course be pissed off if they earned less than a male counterpart. It's not that they don't want equality, it's just that feminism oftentimes preaches an assertiveness, ambition and a level of responsibility that many women simply don't feel comfortable engaging in. Why? Because some women - like men - are shy or do not handle leadership positions well so of course they don't like it. This is not a gender issue, this is an individual issue, as plenty of men are exactly the same. Fun fact: if you look at those "satisfaction with life" polls done every so often, there was a correlation between a drop in women's satisfaction of life and when the feminist movement first began. The obvious answer is that feminism also brought about more responsibility on the shoulders of women, and of course with responsibility comes stress. You can make of that what you will as I don't find the notion women should "man up" (hey not my fault the phrase uses man in the line ) and accept the burden of more responsibility to be crazy, but at the same time I do think this highlights that "privilege" is a two-way street. For example a man could get frustrated that society expects him to be the pursuer and to ask a woman out because that man is very very shy and struggles to do such things, whereas a woman on the other hand could be quite confident and be frustrated that she's made to wait, lest she be called a ****. You may say "yes but feminism will change all that!" and I would sincerely doubt that as feminism provides no working plan to change this mentality. Change the culture? Yeah seems simple enough, but another study actually suggests that "**** shaming" for example is instinctual. Why? There was a time when we were cavemen and the wilderness was dangerous, and you know someone that would struggle in that wilderness? A pregnant woman. So women "bartered" and offered sex for protection. You know what could get a lot of pregnant women killed inadvertedly...? A **** passing out sexual favors for free. Thus, we internalized it and learned to **** shame for the sake of the species. Makes sense, no? I mean why would men ever participate in **** shaming when we BENEFIT from sluts and slutty behavior unless there was something more at work in our minds? Today that mechanic holds almost no purpose as a pregnant woman is more than capable of surviving on her own, yet we as society still **** shame. So yeah, sometimes I think feminism's notion that it can overwrite well over 10,000 years of history, culture and instincts are nothing short of farfetched. It's a dream that'll never occur because doing so would require quietly shushing such classical works like Taming of the Shrew, the Importance of Being Earnest, and not discussing some of the details of culture existing during the time of Joan of Arc, of Susan B. Anthony or the fact that the first 43 or whatever odd presidents we're at have all been male. Moreover, feminism doesn't often address many women who are perfectly happy with the way things are. FFS many women willingly become strippers and porn stars and love every minute of it. I have a friend who's paying her tuition right now by stripping and she loves the job. There's also been blatant "issues" where some girls who do such jobs to get through university discover they can make more money doing that than doing the work they studied for and got a degree in, and thus end up staying. Yes, I realize there's "sex positive" feminists, but for the sake of GG I'm discussing the ones GG is encountering, who definitely don't seem sex positive. Quite bluntly? I have a lot of respect for Charles Darwin. You adapt to survive and the "strongest" survive with the "strongest" being those most capable of adapting to their surroundings. Quite bluntly, sometimes when I hear a feminist rant I hear someone who failed to adapt to their role appropriately and thus they stress and complain about the injustice of it all. I'm not disagreeing the injustice of it all is at times disgusting or disheartening, but I am disagreeing that whining and complaining is the way to cope with it: you need to move forward. Likewise, am I suggesting everyone sit quietly in their seat that society has given them and never speak out? Not at all: history is marked with countless revolutions that actually brought us further and brought us forward, bringing about undeniable progress.....but that's the issue: feminism needs to convince society it is bringing about undeniable progress, otherwise it's quid pro quo, and no one is going to bother changing the fundamentals of society as we know it just for a quid pro quo that benefits you. That would not be "better," that would just be a quid pro quo that relieves you of your stress of trying to ask a guy out as a woman while simultaneously providing a woman who enjoys being a stripper with more stress. (pure example, of course) That's part of the fundamental problem of feminism: it claims there are universal answers to making women happier (beyond the basic things like pay equality which are no brainers and anyone would get behind that), completely failing to realize women are nothing but a gender of individuals, and just like individual men, they have varying dreams, goals and desires. Honestly, it sounds as childish as...when I was in high school I accidently (long story) won a poetry contest and that had a bunch of guys convinced I was good with women. I proceeded to get all these guys asking me to write poems for girls on their behalf, as well as asking me the secret to women and "what women truly want." The idea that there's a universal answer that will get ALL women in the palm of your hand is cringeworthy nonsense that simply paints the guy as socially awkward and an idiot. So how is it any different when a feminist claims to know the secret to making ALL women happier...? Anyways I've rambled quite a bit. If you don't think most women are submissive...? My advice? Go talk to them lulz. I'd actually ask my female friends to come and post here, but realistically I know no woman is going to feel comfortable admitting she's submissive to a bunch of strangers in an online community. Oh, and if you happen to be interested in a woman that's into bondage, go to the UK. Seriously, I dunno how a fetish ended up practically being cultural (I assume the men like it as well, and that KiA mod who lost his position and got smeared was an example of a UK guy liking it), but by god I've yet to meet a british woman who wasn't crazy about that stuff...You can learn a lot from actually talking to women. EDIT: Oh and just for clarity, the repeatedly censored word is a four letter word relevant to sex that's often applied moreso to women that begins with s.

And who the F is this? Never heard of this person. Can kiss my ass and then suck it for what its worth. She's a Gamasutra journalist who became notable because she's especially blunt and cruel in her tweets. Other things she's tweeted about in the past have involved another racist tweet, essentially bragging about ending someone's career, and I guess what you'd call power trip taunts. To me, the most interesting thing about her is the story where she wrote a book, a company offered to publish it, and then later when the very same company responsible for her book being published went and published another guy's book which had ideologies opposed to her own, she felt justified in "pirating" her own book and making it free online so that the very people who paid her for her book would not see any returns or profit off of her book....and then she bragged about this publicly on stage.

Not really, it's been pretty clear that SJWs are largely white dudes for a while now. I meant more in regards to a subreddit specifically geared towards women managing to get overrun by men like that.

https://i.imgur.com/DWLkYVQ.png That's some strange stuff right there.

And until you define what you mean by "prominent GGer", this question remains unanswerable. I'm talking a person that GamerGaters put up on a pedestal. TotalBiscuit, Oliver Campell, Sargon of Akkad, ThunderF00t, Mike Cernovich, Christine Sommers, Jennie Bharaj etc etc etc. You get the idea. I'll look into them. You're certainly welcome to, but at the same time, realize that to MY knowledge, I was asking a rhetorical question: I know damned well there's nothing they've said that's sexist or racist. Not absolutely, but I mean anything you might find probably hasn't even gone noticed by GG itself up until now, kinda rendering that "evidence" moot as it would do nothing to prove GG condones the attitude, though it would be interesting to - for example - post it in KiA and see how they react. But yeah, the question is more or less rhetorical so you may end up wasting your time. Nevertheless let us know if you find something. Try Cernovich. I don't know much about him myself, other than he claims to be partaking in a lawsuit against a friend of Zoe Quinn (or fan? I forget.) Personally I think he might be full of it. Just a hunch.

And until you define what you mean by "prominent GGer", this question remains unanswerable. I'm talking a person that GamerGaters put up on a pedestal. TotalBiscuit, Oliver Campell, Sargon of Akkad, ThunderF00t, Mike Cernovich, Christine Sommers, Jennie Bharaj etc etc etc. You get the idea. The closest one can find it Milo, who has both had some of politics denounced as not being related to GG, and even then I recall him saying more controversial stances in regards to transgender individuals and not anything sexist or racist. And that's my point: GG doesn't put those guys up on a pedestal. The one guy who questionably does has already had threads discussing him in KiA for example, saying that his political stances outside of GG should carry no weight for the movement as it's irrelevant and not the focus of GG, as well as other times when the movement has voiced a desire to not see him do such and such interview because some of his political stances are a liability that easily derail from GG itself (example, Pakman asked questions in regards to Milo's stance on transgender people in an interview. Regardless of your own stance and what you thought of his answer, it was a left field question entirely unrelated to GG and related moreso to Milo). The simple fact that the collective of GG does not have sexist and racist spokespersons speaking on it's behalf should reflect that it is not a sexist and racist movement. As for that Aurini guy, I know nothing about him and he definitely isn't a prominent member. While I sincerely doubt I could cite this, I do however specifically recall how he got that 10k from Patreon. He got it by offering to make the movie in the wake of GamerGate first starting up as a thing, and even THEN I recall a thread popping up advising people NOT to throw money at him because the two guys behind it were of questionable professionalism and ideas. As I said, when I asked the question, the only name that could qualify by quite a stretch is Milo. Stretch in the sense the man has had questionable stances pre-GG and his stances have been discussed and denounced before. I mean there's a reason TB basically gets EVERYTHING he said discussed whereas Milo only comes up when he writes a factual article and not so much when he voices an opinion. Seriously, grow up dude. I check in on this thread ~once per hour. There's this handy dandy little thing at the bottom that can show you who's watching the thread, and you may've noticed I just got here.

I was a little surprised by how upset Longknife/Fighter was. I didn't think you were totally serious. I'm upset by it because Bruce has this wonderful habit of not even replying to points he cannot counter while posting nothing but things that fit into his agenda or things to derail from serious discussion. I've got nothing against humor or even derailing comments when it's only to a certain extent. But seriously, flip back through the pages. You'll notice a clear pattern where some of the most effective arguments by a GGer are blissfully looked over as he pretends they do not exist. Meanwhile, in the very first thread of this series, I proposed a challenge to name one prominent GG supporter who has made a single sexist or racist comment or condoned harassment. My point was that the only people the SJWs and anti-GG point to are the anonymous trolls with names like "umadsosad" who post things like "I'll fookn cut j00 n***er lel" and try to claim that's the face of an entire movement. Such tactics could be used against literally -ANY- group. And here we are and he's "joking" about how sexist and racist GG is while still failing to cite a SINGLE example of sexism or racism even after I and others have asked him to do so. No, you do not have the right to make such jokes when you cannot even participate in a real debate or respond to requests to cite your stances. Why did that comment piss me off? Because it beautifully sums up how delusional and blind Bruce is. I'm not blind to the fact it was a joke, but what's disturbing to me is that he apparently thinks ANYONE would find it funny. It's the most obvious thing in the world that he's in the overwhelming minority opinion in this thread, and yet he spouts that "joke" as if he were in some sort of supermajority and everyone will love it. That to me says that regardless how much we talk to him or tell him this or that, he won't listen or acknowledge reality. Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall, and even when people make good points, he blatantly ignores them and continues to go about with an attitude that he is right and we are wrong and obviously everyone in GG is sexist and racist. Yes, I would surmise from that joke that he still believe GamerGate to be a sexist/racist/all the bad word in the world movement, and that pisses me off, because for him to think that now is nothing short of delusional. You wanna challenge my point? Ask him yourself, right now, if he thinks people in GG are sexist and racist, then ask him to name prominent examples. As I said, no, I do NOT find such a joke ok when he cannot name examples because when one makes such a joke while completely lacking evidence to reinforce that joke and actually warrant it's existence, then that to me says "this individual is delusional as ****." Him telling that joke is essentially on par with a Republican going to a Democratic convention and telling a joke about how the scumbag democrats framed Richard Nixon: it's nothing short of delusional to think it'd be well-received and highlights just how in-denial he is to think it would be. To quote a comedian, "it's my firm belief, you absolutely have to know where you are in the time space continuum." I never thought I'd meet someone where I questioned if they did. I do think that there are elements within GG that are sexist and misogynist, so you are right about that. That's probably the only thing you are correct about in this post It also sounds like you are getting into the business of telling people when and where certain jokes are applicable, this doesn't like GG? That sounds more like what a SJW would say because we believe that certain jokes are not appropriate. So welcome to the club, you'll see its not so bad here I have to dismiss everything else you say as " anti-BruceVC propaganda" ...its bias and therefore we have to question its credibility And I call blatant bull****. Why? Jokes are often defined as "witty observations." For that joke to qualify as such (as a joke), you'd need to be commenting on an observation you made that held some manner of truth to it. If you sit here and claim "I don't think they're sexist and racist" then the joke loses all ground. So you mean to tell me you thought it'd randomly be funny to liken everyone you're debating against as sexist and racist, for no apparent reason...? Yeah, I don't buy that worth a damn. You can sit there retreating claiming it's a joke all you like, but your thought process doesn't make a lick of sense if I'm to believe this claim above. You know damned well what you did, BS excuses aren't going to change the fact you said it. No, they're just a petty way to weasel out of owning up to a mistake you made. As I said, the joke does not offend me, and if someone else had said it I probably wouldn't react as drastically, I react the way I do now because it's mind-numbing to watch you be in denial time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. As for you calling it "anti-Bruce" propaganda, I think you'll find most people here know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If not, perhaps I can cite a few examples of you suddenly going silent whenever a good counter argument comes up. This isn't rocket science nor is this anything new. You've been doing it since thread #1. EDIT: I actually misread what you said and see you are openly admitting to considering GG sexist and racist. And again, where are your sources? Where is a single prominent GGer making a sexist or racist comment.? TIME magazine did a poll for most loathed word, feminism won. Now the claim is it was a "small bias sample" and doesn't accurately represent the mentality of the people. I've no idea how large the sample was but I'd hardly consider TIME's readership to be naturally bias towards anti-feminism...

I was a little surprised by how upset Longknife/Fighter was. I didn't think you were totally serious. I'm upset by it because Bruce has this wonderful habit of not even replying to points he cannot counter while posting nothing but things that fit into his agenda or things to derail from serious discussion. I've got nothing against humor or even derailing comments when it's only to a certain extent. But seriously, flip back through the pages. You'll notice a clear pattern where some of the most effective arguments by a GGer are blissfully looked over as he pretends they do not exist. Meanwhile, in the very first thread of this series, I proposed a challenge to name one prominent GG supporter who has made a single sexist or racist comment or condoned harassment. My point was that the only people the SJWs and anti-GG point to are the anonymous trolls with names like "umadsosad" who post things like "I'll fookn cut j00 n***er lel" and try to claim that's the face of an entire movement. Such tactics could be used against literally -ANY- group. And here we are and he's "joking" about how sexist and racist GG is while still failing to cite a SINGLE example of sexism or racism even after I and others have asked him to do so. No, you do not have the right to make such jokes when you cannot even participate in a real debate or respond to requests to cite your stances. Why did that comment piss me off? Because it beautifully sums up how delusional and blind Bruce is. I'm not blind to the fact it was a joke, but what's disturbing to me is that he apparently thinks ANYONE would find it funny. It's the most obvious thing in the world that he's in the overwhelming minority opinion in this thread, and yet he spouts that "joke" as if he were in some sort of supermajority and everyone will love it. That to me says that regardless how much we talk to him or tell him this or that, he won't listen or acknowledge reality. Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall, and even when people make good points, he blatantly ignores them and continues to go about with an attitude that he is right and we are wrong and obviously everyone in GG is sexist and racist. Yes, I would surmise from that joke that he still believe GamerGate to be a sexist/racist/all the bad word in the world movement, and that pisses me off, because for him to think that now is nothing short of delusional. You wanna challenge my point? Ask him yourself, right now, if he thinks people in GG are sexist and racist, then ask him to name prominent examples. As I said, no, I do NOT find such a joke ok when he cannot name examples because when one makes such a joke while completely lacking evidence to reinforce that joke and actually warrant it's existence, then that to me says "this individual is delusional as ****." Him telling that joke is essentially on par with a Republican going to a Democratic convention and telling a joke about how the scumbag democrats framed Richard Nixon: it's nothing short of delusional to think it'd be well-received and highlights just how in-denial he is to think it would be. To quote a comedian, "it's my firm belief, you absolutely have to know where you are in the time space continuum." I never thought I'd meet someone where I questioned if they did.

That Aurini guy is the most disgusting ****heel I ever listened to on youtube ("we should be absolutely furious with the n***ers... not the blacks, but the f***ing n***ers"; "whites have been working for the past several hundred years to eliminate slavery throughout the globe - and even when we bought the black slaves, we treated them extremely well"; "women in our culture have become the most decadent sluts since the fall of Rome" etc. etc.). The other guy I'm also unfamiliar with. He sounds like someone who should align himself with GG, his perspective will fit in very well there Bruce how about you go **** yourself and again: get out of this thread until you're interested in productive debate? Seriously, the last page or two brought up rather good and relevant points, such as the counter to your "we can't have people thinking feminism is bad" already being a sailed ship if it was infamous enough to win TIME's poll, or how censoring those results is literally implying feminism is more important than truth, not to mention such a tactic is something not unheard of from totalitarian regimes. But do you respond to that? No, you make some horrendously off-color remark likening all of us who support GG with some guy who's blatantly and disgustingly bigoted, both towards other races and sexes. Your remark just now - as far as I'm concerned - is right up there with that article calling gamers fascists. You know why I'm always preaching about productive debate? Because if you get two sides both stating their cases while both are capable of admitting when they're wrong, then you can do fantastic work to figure out who's right and who's wrong, as well as figure out the best course of action. But I've never seen that from you. I've seen some sad little man who is too simple-minded to realize that yes, a woman claiming to be an oppressed victim is also capable of being a bully, a liar and a fight instigator. And yet when there's an entire page filled with counter-points to highlight this, what do you do? You look over them and just make an incredibly insulting remark, likening your debate opposition to racists and sexists. As I've said, kindly get the **** out, cause it's clear you have no interest in productive debate, nor do you have anything to offer any productive discussion.

Not neccesarily, I view that as a reflection of EA's horrendous intent. Great example, EA vs. bp (yknow, the guys responsible for the oil spill). How is EA possibly worse than them? How are cigarette companies not as bad as EA? Intent. BP was negligent and far from professional, but did they intend to pollute the Gulf? Absolutely not, it was risk vs. reward and someone got a little too careless and things spilled out. Cigarette companies, there was a time when this would hold more weight, but to my knowledge they're forbidden from marketing in various ways and must alert their customers of the health risk. Sure, their jobs are of questionable importance in the grand scope of things, but so are the people who make alcohol or chocolate. At this point, they as companies are simply serving those that fell for the malicious ads released by the generation before them. So how is EA worse? Do you think EA intends to gut their customer and milk them for every cent? Abso-****ing-lutely. EA has full intent to screw you over. If you doubt this, ask yourself why they, for example, were insistent on DRM (until it proved unprofitable) or why Sims 4 provided no press release copies before release. Ask why they have day 1 DLC in their games. While EA's impact on the world is by no means as devistating as the other two, their intent is the most disgusting (again, when comparing to today's tobacco industry and not the one from 40+ years ago). EA blatantly tries to gut their customer for all their worth and shows no shame in doing so, and, in the process, manages to ruin several franchises and companies people enjoyed and ensure they'll never be seen or heard from again. These would be some good competitors if we measured "worst" by the company with the most ill-intent.

Let's view this symbolically, shall we? Feminism is the true winner of that poll. That feminism won and is the most hated word of 2014 is the truth. For feminists to rally and get the word removed via complaints is to say that feminism is more important than the truth. Do those of you that support feminism agree that feminism is more important than truth?

I got some bad news for you...

BTW just a reminder, Ubisoft has a writer who called GamerGate a bunch of "terrorists." Far Cry 4? Yeah...let's not buy it.

Let's continue our lessons, shall we? This is Heavy: Heavy is typical russian. He enjoys eating sandviches and can be very intimidating.

Well for example the guy who claims he was attacked and now cannot talk about it...ya but you can post a selfie, no? Got scars? Show em.

Apparently there is a video of the attack, but the alleged victim isn't allowed to talk about it during an investigation. He was rescued by a porn star though, so silver lining. Swatting hasn't been confirmed so who knows for certain. Wouldn't be the first time though. What's annoying is there's multiple claims of various things going on, but we won't know for weeks or months if they're bold-faced lies or true, simply because they involve the police, FBI or the court system. Gonna be honest though, I think divas aren't exclusive to one group. I question the validity of claims from both sides.

Who says video games aren't already art:

Oh and for added effect, this is the next video that comes up in the playlist lololololol:

Here, just to give Bruce and some others another 404 error, the female reporter is a feminist:

So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"? This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever? There is a big difference between you, as an individual, saying "hey I don't like your shirt" and a massive collective of people dogpiling him about his shirt to the point people are reading about what the man wore on Tuesday in their daily news. The entirety of Gamergate is essentially that: a conflict with a more powerful collective of people (mostly companies) doing whatever the hell they want even when it's questionable morally. You have every right to not like his shirt, but he also has every right to wear it. And for that situation to somehow turn into "let's report on this man's shirt his female friend gave him" more than his actual phenominal accomplishments is nothing short of insane. Yes, I am, at least within this context. Not so much in principle, mind you. Theoretically a news organization could report on his shirt in an innocent way, but this isn't it. This is the same people spouting the same ideologies and using the same dogpiling tactics they've used before. I take offense to this because I'm pretty certain they went about publishing this fully knowing that a mass collective of people would then begin to dogpile the guy for...a piece of cloth. It's fully possible for a news organization to jokingly say "lol hey look at his tacky shirt! Those geniuses sure are eccentric!" with innocent intent, then someone else looks at it and takes offense and it snowballs, but this isn't it. It's the same people spouting the same principles and using the same drama queen tactics. Let's be reasonable, logical, and not ****nuts balls-to-the-wall insane for a moment, shall we? Do you think this man put on that shirt with the attitude of "Boy, I sure can't wait to oppress the entire female gender and put them in their place by wearing my shirt!"? If you do, go **** yourself. Do you think we had any reason pre-drama to believe that this man would react hostily or rudely if someone commented on his shirt? I sure didn't see anything to suggest that. So now tell me... If you've got a nice, well-meaning individual who's blissfully unaware they just screwed up (for arguments sake let's assume there is something objectively undeniably wrong with his shirt), do you kindly pull them aside and tell them they screwed up, or do you scream at them and say "HEY EVERYONE, LET'S COME CALL THIS GUY MEAN NAMES!" For an analogy, imagine a school classroom having a water balloon fight, and some kids can opt out or their parents can opt them out for various reasons. Imagine that one kid unknowingly approaches a child who opted out of the water balloon fight and pegs him with one, and the child immediately begins to cry. Would you expect the teacher to: A) Calmly ask the child that threw the balloon to be more careful and pay more attention to who he throws balloons at while also asking him to say he's sorry so that no ill will develops between the two. B) Scream at the child, give him detention and make a giant spectacle of the child in front of the classroom, purposefully humiliating him by telling all his classmates what an idiot he was If you chose B, congrats, you would be a perfect Public Relations manager for the SJW collective. You would also get fired on your first day as a school teacher. And personally, I'd like to bring this back up: No seriously. Please explain how you think the ideologies of the SJW collective are currently working to make the world a better place. How is this a moral improvement that this guy was brought to tears? How is this a moral improvement that TIME was pressured into removing "feminism" from their "word people would most like to see the world be rid of" list if that is infact the truthful winner of that question? How does making a big stink about this man's shirt make the world a better place? Yknow it's funny, I'm suddenly reminded of this: I expect differing opinions on this, but you know what? I agree with him. It's a very bitter truth I'm afraid, because I don't see it actually happening. But the fact of the matter is, when you constantly acknowledge differences, you know who that effects the most? Children. Children are impressionable, and they adapt to the world they're raised in. If you raise a child in an environment where race is a constant issue that their parents constantly reference in every single occurance, then yes, they will consider race important. If however you only name racism when in a historical context or in other factual situations, then they do not learn to see the world in regards to different racial issues. It's a very bitter truth because it's essentially also asking the very victims of racism to not overly or unneccesarily acknowledge the injustice they are victims of too much to their children, and understandably it's one many families may disagree with as being good parenting, as they may consider it important to teach their child they may be a victim of racism. But objectively speaking, I do find his opinion to be logically sound. I'm sure some of you may nitpick details where it's not (for example I would also believe someone who simply grows up in a pure white community or vice versa will be more prone to some form of racism), but point is this would help. We are doing the exact opposite now. We are acknowledging gender at every turn, even now when some guy is attempting to land something on a comet speeding through space. This is not good for the younger generations. Meshugger did a fabulous post with some Grade-A analytical thinking where he highlighted that this strand of feminism - when following it's own principles - amounts to little more than a drive for personal power. This is not good, as it essentially promotes NOTHING but conflict. It's not even about women's rights, it's about personal interests. Until I see a counter argument to some of those points made, I see absolutely zero incentive to take any of this crap seriously.

What are you, not a man?