Quote from: Spike;798936I read the whole thing. It is to laugh.

I sorta want to track his sorry ass down, on the interwebz, and take up his offer to debate, when Death is On The Line!

What with his wonderful grasp of facts and all, I'm pretty sure an unbiased moderator would give me the points, all of them.

Now: Finding an unbiased moderator? That might be a challenge in this day and age.

Did you know that 50 BILLION women have suffered oppression their entire lives until 1970?

That's funny because I've always heard that there are more people alive today than have died in all of history combined. That means he's off by a full order of magnitude, even accounting for hyperbole.

You've always heard wrong, if I remember correctly the estimate for overall number of dead people throughout history is between 50 and 150 billions (it probably depends also how far back you go with your definition of people).

Not to mention - 15 years, really? Put aside the fact that Final Solution was enacted in '41 (I am pretty sure if it lasted 15 years, there'd be no European Jewry left to smack him behind the ear for this post), Hitler only came to power in '33, so at the most liberal estimate, we'd be talking 12 years here.

Quote from: Novastar;798933I can handle the fact there exists someone so hateful and deluded in the world; what's surprising is the amount of people who are cheering him on. :eek:

"In this day and age, one can start a religion using washing machine instructions."

I've seen same shit with rightist idiots praising Putin for taking Crimea as he'll save us all from the wickedness of HOMOSEXUALISM.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892By the definition of what misogyny is, what he did was misogynistic.  

Nooo,

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798900That is textbook misogyny.

Still no,

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798921"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."

and no. Googling that phrase gives 61 hits, none of which are from a dictionary. The entire second sentence is an ideological addendum attempting to reframe the meaning of "misogyny" from "hatred" to "behaviors we don't like". Note also how "violence" is equated with "denigration" and "sexual objectification", as if they are all equally bad; that's why "violence" is in there in the first place, to push emotional buttons and cause people to uncritically accept that "equality".

You've bought into a spurious definition put forth for political purposes.

Quote from: Spike;798936That's funny because I've always heard that there are more people alive today than have died in all of history combined. That means he's off by a full order of magnitude, even accounting for hyperbole.

I've read that too; it's flat wrong. I've read 80 billion before, the most recent estimate is around 108 billion, thought that's starting from 50k BC, not 10k years ago. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead/

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892By the definition of what misogyny is, what he did was misogynistic.  That's not really up for debate because that's what that word means.  Cut and dry.  You can't start ignoring the definition of what words mean when they don't fit your agenda, because otherwise that makes you (general you) an apologist.

And I don't really give a shit if he admits it or not.  THat's not the point of what I said that you quoted.  The point was that people on "his side" (i.e. pro GG) should and did, call him out on it.  And that's what I was getting at.  That people need to start holding the idiots on their own side accountable.

Misogynistic = hates women. Only in the twisted fucked up minds of SJWs and their fellow travellers is saying that Zoey Quinn is unattractive 'misogynistic'. I don't hate Zoey Quinn, and if I did her looks would have nothing to do with it. And I don't hate women in general, if it needed saying - but I doubt even you really believe that.

Telling pro-GGs that they need to call me (or anyone) out on that is doing anti-GGs work for them. It's called concern trolling. Either you really are a SJW or they have so colonised your mindspace that you are like one of those insects whose brain has been eaten out by an invasive species, doing the invaders' bidding.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798900Wait, what?  Pardon me for not using the appropriate color sarcasm font, but what I said was total sarcasm.  I thought that was pretty obvious.  That isn't even remotely close to what he did.

"I don't find her ugly, and why should it even matter to the content of the argument?"
"Well, she's not horribly ugly, just fat and plain.  Now THIS is what pro-GG girls look like on our side"

That was a sincere quote, posted with an image.  Not anything with what that woman actually thinks on the topic, but just her image, while attacking the other woman based only on her image.

That is textbook misogyny.

Whose textbook? You seem to think radical feminist dialectic is gospel.

Quote from: apparition13;798942You've bought into a spurious definition put forth for political purposes.

I'm starting to think this is what happened. I forget how stupid some people are. There's a big difference between someone who seeks to redefine words for political purposes because they agree with those purposes (SJWs & their supporters, eg Will) and sheeple who apparently will accept whatever they're told by SJWs even when they apparently disagree with their ends (here, Sacrosanct).

"My SJW-written textbook tells me 2+2=5! We must police ourselves for anyone saying 2+2=4!"

Punishment because of collective guilt. This should end well.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/patrick-blanchfield-masculine-mistake-article-1.2011600

Quote from: S'mon;798965I'm starting to think this is what happened. I forget how stupid some people are. There's a big difference between someone who seeks to redefine words for political purposes because they agree with those purposes (SJWs & their supporters, eg Will) and sheeple who apparently will accept whatever they're told by SJWs even when they apparently disagree with their ends (here, Sacrosanct).

"My SJW-written textbook tells me 2+2=5! We must police ourselves for anyone saying 2+2=4!"

Everyone is 'stupid'. Brains are evolved to get the job done with the minimum of resource use, which means there are lots of built in and developed shortcuts and heuristics they use. These are "in the aggregate" usually functional, but in particular cases can mess you up. Everyone has their blind spots, everyone engages in motivated reasoning, everyone makes mistakes of perception and interpretation, everyone jumps to conclusions, everyone lumps others into groups... and I think I'll stop there because I could go on for pages.

Conservativism  is based on the notion that change is dangerous, that societies are the way they are because they work, which is true. But conditions change, and "the way things are because they work" can become "the way things are because they worked" pretty quickly because environments change, and formerly beneficial adaptations can become maladaptive. Societies also need people exploring the edges of social space and coming up with potential solutions, that then become new traditions. Take the idea of individualism for example. 250 years a go it was a radical left-wing notion, now it's mainstream conservative.

The core SJW notion is, I think, compassion. But it is a compassion that has become infected with groupishness (which is one of the things people do that "can mess you up"), anthropomorphisation of purported aspects of societies (patriarchy) by seeing moral intent in abstract (and unsubstantiated, lots of conjecturing about the way things are, not a lot of testing of those conjectures) social forces, moral virtue ascribed based on group characteristics and identity (stereotyping), not the least of which is the de-legitimization of class identity as central to "privilege". There is a lot wrong with Marx, eschatological utopianism being the biggest I'd say, but identifying wealth, power, and influence, privilege, as the natural enemy of progressivism wasn't one of them. Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power).

Quote from: TristramEvans;798929That doesn't answer my question.

I suppose I need to write it out in crayon for you, since either your mental capacity is so lacking that you can't make the obvious connection, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

When someone asks, "why should their appearance even matter at all?"  and the response to that is to attack one person's appearance and say that "women on our side are hotter", that's textbook objectification of women.  The entire post does exactly what I warned against: placing the value of members of a group based on their looks, and not a standard that was held equally.  He wasn't degenerating ugly men on their side and highlighting attractive men on his.  He didn't bring up this Syria woman based on any content of her thoughts or actions; he only posted a picture of her as if her looks are what was important.

When you're placing the value of a woman to a debate based on her looks, that is textbook objectification.

Quote"Man up" is the suggestion that to act more like a man is to be more mature. But you're right , it's not misogynistic, I erred, it's just sexist.

Keep reaching.  That phrase means to grow up and take responsibility for what he did.  I said "man" up because he's a man.  If he were a woman, I would have said "woman up" or something similar.  That's not sexist.  Do you know what is?  What he said.

QuotePlease dont involve me in your paranoid delusions. I have no association with s'mon.

The only one here who is delusional is you.  He is the one who made a pretty shitty post and you're trying to make me as the bad guy and acting like an apologist for him?  That's exactly the sort of behavior that gives the anti GG side merit, because you're doing exactly what they are complaining about.  That's not paranoia.  That's something that is actively happening and is a basis of their entire argument.

Quote from: apparition13;798942Nooo,

Still no,


and no. Googling that phrase gives 61 hits, none of which are from a dictionary. The entire second sentence is an ideological addendum attempting to reframe the meaning of "misogyny" from "hatred" to "behaviors we don't like". Note also how "violence" is equated with "denigration" and "sexual objectification", as if they are all equally bad; that's why "violence" is in there in the first place, to push emotional buttons and cause people to uncritically accept that "equality".

You've bought into a spurious definition put forth for political purposes.

Sorry, you're wrong.  If anyone's using spurious definitions, it would be you.  Heck, you're even trying to hand wave away part of what that word means right above by your strawman of "as if they are equally bad".  Equality of those words isn't relevant, and isn't what the definition is trying to imply.

Not only is the definition I used the common definition used by most sociological academia, but it also the official definition of the Macquarie Dictionary, which is the dictionary that is used as the official dictionary of Australian courts.

It's not some "radfem" definition I used for my own biased purposes.  It's the commonly accepted definition.

Quote from: S'mon;798962Misogynistic = hates women. Only in the twisted fucked up minds of SJWs and their fellow travellers is saying that Zoey Quinn is unattractive 'misogynistic'. I don't hate Zoey Quinn, and if I did her looks would have nothing to do with it. And I don't hate women in general, if it needed saying - but I doubt even you really believe that.

Telling pro-GGs that they need to call me (or anyone) out on that is doing anti-GGs work for them. It's called concern trolling. Either you really are a SJW or they have so colonised your mindspace that you are like one of those insects whose brain has been eaten out by an invasive species, doing the invaders' bidding.

Quote from: S'mon;798963Whose textbook? You seem to think radical feminist dialectic is gospel.

Look above.  I just answered that.

And once again, refusal to take responsibility for your actions (you don't even think you did anything wrong), and are trying to make me as the bad guy when you were the one to objectify women.

The more and more you talk, the more right the anti-GG side is because you're proving their point.  And you're too fucking blind to even see that.  The really hilarious thing is you accusing me of being a SJW.  How many posts, over how many years, have I expressed my disdain for that group?  Hell, just look at my user title for God's sake.  What you're doing is taking the approach of "I'm going to say something really fucking horrible, and if you don't agree with me, you must be a radical -ist."  That makes you exactly like them.

Quote from: Novastar;798909For better ethics in journalism, at this point.
The entire ordeal has opened my eyes to how corrupt and unethical news organizations, from the small to the large, have become in the US.

I've gone from "take a news story with a grain of salt" cynical, to full blown "are they making this shit up?!?" tinfoil hat assery, now.


Hopefully a push for greater ethics within journalism, or at the very least, for the worst offenders to reveal themselves, so I can avoid them in the future.

I'll ask you, because the others seem busy arguing over whether S'mon is misogynist or not.
(It seems like he technically isn't, but that the extreme alleged "feminists" would not care about that in practice.)

Oh yes, my question:
Why taking up the corruption in journalism now?
I mean, if it is about biased reviews, I doubt that totally objective reviews is possible, so what is the point there?

Quote from: Catelf;799004Oh yes, my question:
Why taking up the corruption in journalism now?
I mean, if it is about biased reviews, I doubt that totally objective reviews is possible, so what is the point there?

They can be better, dammit.  They don't have to be perfect.

In 1994, Sierra released a game called "Outpost" for the PC.  It got glowing, fantastic reviews in every magazine (90%+, or the equivalent.)  When it actually got released, it was a buggy, miserable mess laking basic features the reviewers gave great praise to.

Turns out, they reviewed a beta and gave the publisher credit for things that they were simply TOLD were in the game and never actually existed.

Twenty years later, this exact situation could happen, with the only difference being the reviews being on websites.  Computer gaming journalism has sucked bigtime since I was a fucking teenager.  Any damn excuse to make it better is a good one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;799002I suppose I need to write it out in crayon for you, since either your mental capacity is so lacking that you can't make the obvious connection, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

lol. I think more likely you're not as smart as you think you are and you're arguments aren't as valid as you think they are. Of course, if you had a valid argument you wouldnt feel the need to regress to junior high ad hominem.

Well I gave you a fair, unbiased chance to explain your position. And you failed in every way.

QuoteWhen someone asks, "why should their appearance even matter at all?"  and the response to that is to attack one person's appearance and say that "women on our side are hotter", that's textbook objectification of women.

Again you're stating your conclusion without offering any reasoning. Its like you're simply repeating some mantra. I'm going to assume at this point you're simply incapable of answering my question, because you seem to think saying something makes it true. Your phrases like "textbook definition of..." are absolutely meaningless. You have not yet made a single reasoned argument.

QuoteWhen you're placing the value of a woman to a debate based on her looks, that is textbook objectification.

Which isn't what happened. I think you also suffer from a failure of reading comprehension.

QuoteKeep reaching.  That phrase means to grow up and take responsibility for what he did.  I said "man" up because he's a man.  If he were a woman, I would have said "woman up" or something similar.  That's not sexist.  Do you know what is?  What he said.

You can't even admit it when you yourself said something sexist. This is sad on so many levels.

QuoteThe only one here who is delusional is you.  He is the one who made a pretty shitty post and you're trying to make me as the bad guy and acting like an apologist for him?  That's exactly the sort of behavior that gives the anti GG side merit, because you're doing exactly what they are complaining about.  That's not paranoia.  That's something that is actively happening and is a basis of their entire argument.

lol, I didnt try to make you "feel" anything,  and I never once made any sort of "apologism" for S'mon. I never even mentioned him. Didnt know who that was in the context of this thread till you brouught him up. Hence your paranoid delusion. I asked you simply for clarification of your position, giving you the benefit of the doubt you had some reasoning behind what you were saying in this thread. Your responses in turn have been decidedly juvenile and ignorant, with no discernible logic or even an indication that you understand what a reasoned position is, and as such your opinions are simply dismiss-able.

Quote from: TristramEvans;799017You can't even admit it when you yourself said something sexist. This is sad on so many levels.

Just pointing out this specifically:
Saying "Man up" to a man is not automatically sexist.

Quote from: Catelf;799028Just pointing out this specifically:
Saying "Man up" to a man is not automatically sexist.

Honestly? I dont think so either. But it is according to the interpretative standards that Sacrosanct is employing. So its either sexist, or hypocritical, I'm not sure which is better.

Quote from: TristramEvans;799031Honestly? I dont think so either. But it is according to the interpretative standards that Sacrosanct is employing. So its either sexist, or hypocritical, I'm not sure which is better.

Good point.

..... I think I read in a link somewhere about a femme comic character, that frequently say "Woman up" to people, independent of gender.
I like that kind of counteraction more than forbidding the expression itself.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;799009Twenty years later, this exact situation could happen, with the only difference being the reviews being on websites.  Computer gaming journalism has sucked bigtime since I was a fucking teenager.  Any damn excuse to make it better is a good one.

It almost did with Aliens Marine game.  The beta of that game was far more superior than what the actual game was.  I mean every thing.  When the media found out the truth they gave that game a lot of shit.