• UN talk about how Pokemon is full of killing, D&D is Santanic, reddit and harddrives used as sources
    193 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48807842]ya the fat technicolor feminist look is also dumb idk where you saw me defending that aside from freedom of expression [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] wow judging by post appearance 10/10 you know i could make a post about how ur avatar is borderline porn of an underaged character in a videogame but i refrain cuz im not a big baby [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitposting" - Orkel))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Fucking hell; it is way to easy to get these guys to shitpost.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48813844]I've been itching for a chance to get into this, so here it is: my criticism of the Men's Rights Movement. [/QUOTE] I agree that both movements are heavy handed and contain a good portion of extremists due to the us vs them tendencies that frequently perpetuate and is inherently a part of movements that fight for equality but state their preferred gender in its name (or at least extremism is slightly more likely in comparison to other groups). There is a reason I stated that I most of their talking points convinced me but not all of them. I agree that labels are completely bullshit for obvious reasons as a huge portion of my post was dedicated to that. I'm won over in the sense that I am convinced that the MRA movement has a rightful place in this world and isn't based on 100% baloney. That being said from the impressions I get feminism in the US is currently more dangerous in the US then MRA. There are simply more feminists in power with radicalized views then MRA's. That and there are institutions dedicated to fighting for feminism but if they can't find clear cut problems to fight naturally they will seek lesser targets to keep their funding. Which is bullshit because there are plenty of areas that aren't equal but those are in favor of women so those are ignored in favor of less important stuff. That combined with political correctness makes for a very plausible vector for negative social changes. It's also becoming increasingly politically charged (I think I remember a relatively major fem organization having their stated no1 goal being: make clinton president). Anyway I have to cut this short and avoid discussing the matter any further. Due to my injury I simply cannot type a lot and I also need to type some school related stuff so I gotta set my priorities right.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48813844]The writer of the manifesto has fallen into the same trap as the radical feminists whom they are poised to criticize. They have attempted to provide a Point A to Point B to Point C answer but have fundamentally just dug into a complex social situation until it met with the standards of their pet scientific theory (evolutionary psychology in this case, sociology in the case of feminist criticism) without providing the who, what, when, where and why that would make this a complete argument from beginning to end. The rest of the logic can be perfectly sound, but if there's even a single bit that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it puts the whole argument in question. Just like critical theory, evolutionary psychology is a tool, but (just like critical theory) it can be misused when people take it to be the be-all-end-all approach to understanding any particular topic, the people who do this tend to dig into something until they find the answer they're looking for.[/QUOTE] Now, call me a moron for not immediately seeing it, but can you please specify where exactly the author enters into their pet theory?
[QUOTE=Murky42;48804372]> All "patriarchy" is is male-centered society. Dude this is the worst idea. Can you imagine if we achieved first contact and the aliens found humanity and thought: "Holy shit intergalactic tumblr how the hell did this species achieve space flight?!."[/QUOTE] At least they will only kill the tumblr planet. This is why interplanetary space travel will save humanity. This world is getting cluttered with opinions and no one can get along.
why is it whenever policy is made regarding the "safety" of videogames its either a bunch of 70 year old judges sitting around an xbox or a bunch of 60 year old usually white women sitting around a council room [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] the leading political belief is videogames cause x,y,and z problems, yet every single credible study has refuted that videogames cause any of x y or z problems
[QUOTE=Sableye;48817821]why is it whenever policy is made regarding the "safety" of videogames its either a bunch of 70 year old judges sitting around an xbox or a bunch of 60 year old usually white women sitting around a council room [/QUOTE] Thats pretty much every issue. Only the very old really ever get into positions where these choices are made. [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] [video=youtube;prmprJyPyv0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmprJyPyv0[/video]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48817875]Thats pretty much every issue. Only the very old really ever get into positions where these choices are made. [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] [/QUOTE] better be careful with thunderf00t, some people consider his videos shitposting
[QUOTE=gufu;48815714]Now, call me a moron for not immediately seeing it, but can you please specify where exactly the author enters into their pet theory?[/QUOTE] So, everything up to and including this bit is fine: [quote]Male Hierarchy Society’s understanding of manhood as a Platonic ideal to aspire towards explains the fact how there can be “better men” and “worse men” (as men), as well as how biological males can be “not real men” – the use of “real” to mean “ideal” is telling.[/QUOTE] But then this bit makes a big leap without explaining the who, what, when, why of the male ranking and hierarchy. What is it caused by? How do we prove it exists? What perpetrates it? Is it a social construct or is it neurological? The writer doesn't state this and just assumes it to be true based on the preposition of evolutionary psychology, that people do things because our ancestors in the past did it so if our ancestors in the past did it then we must be doing it today, without any actual evidence of that transference to the modern day. It's a common criticism of evolutionary psychology in general: it doesn't consider human advancement after the Pleistocene period, and it's not like people just stopped evolving after we stopped being cavemen. [QUOTE]Because manhood is demonstrated by performing certain tasks, men are ranked in accordance with how well they perform these tasks. Men are ranked by other men and by women – their gender identity is heavily subject to social validation and revocation. This means “real manhood” is an earned social status which is collective-dependent, hierarchical and competitive, and men can be socially emasculated at any time. Male identity is made contingent on competing with each other to prove oneself a “better man.” As stated above, maturity is linked with “real manhood” but male maturity is again socially validated due to the fact that masculine task-performance isn’t biologically guaranteed – this means male elders (particularly fathers) are placed in a position of evaluator where they judge prospective males to separate the “boys” from the “men.” The male hierarchy can be effectively divided into three basic categories (from lowest social status to highest social status) 1) Males who are “not real men.” The socially emasculated. “Boys.” Omega males. 2) Males who are “real men” but who aren’t able to revoke another male’s “real man” status. Beta males. 3) Males who are “real men” with the ability to revoke another male’s “real man” status. Alpha males.[/QUOTE] Like seriously, where did this come from? It jumps from people being judged for being "better" men and "worse" men to there being a defined hierarchy within all of society, as decided by [i]something[/i] or [i]somebody[/i]. That's the difference between all of us having our own platonic ideal of what a "real" man is or isn't, to there necessarily being some sort of undefinable oligarchy in place to create a hierarchy. It's like the ever undefinable patriarchy in feminist theory, different people have different ideas of what bad/problematic masculine attitudes actually are as well as who perpetrates them.
Sarkeesian and Quinn certainly do have friends in high places after this and getting a job at google. How deep does the rabbit hole go?
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;48821428]Sarkeesian and Quinn certainly do have friends in high places after this and getting a job at google. How deep does the rabbit hole go?[/QUOTE] It's less that they have friends and more like the same people that have wanted to regulate video games for years, who also have a lot of political power and money, have found them to be useful in effectively bringing about their political goals. They are effective tools, nothing more and nothing less.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48824698]They don't have friends in high places, they make friends in high places and that way they're able to do what they do[/QUOTE] Making friends = having friends lol
I'm not sure about Sarkeesian, but Zoe Quinn lost all of her credibility when she slept with journalists to promote her terrible video game.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;48829657]I'm not sure about Sarkeesian, but Zoe Quinn lost all of her credibility when she slept with journalists to promote her terrible video game.[/QUOTE] That doesn't really invalidate her opinions though, even if it does kind of make her a shitty person in general. The thing that invalidates her opinions is that she's an anti-abuse advocate who used to frequent HellDump and remembers it fondly, one of if not the most abusive internet community ever created that got shut down after they drove one too many people to literally kill themselves (which they praised and called a 'confirmed kill' btw). Someone who revels in the suffering and death of other people should not be an anti-abuse advocate, imo.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48829562]If you're friending somebody just so you can push your own agenda further, you're not being a good friend now are you[/QUOTE] What are you even arguing about right now
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48829562]If you're friending somebody just so you can push your own agenda further, you're not being a good friend now are you[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand that saying very well
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48829562]If you're friending somebody just so you can push your own agenda further, you're not being a good friend now are you[/QUOTE] What does that even mean? If she has connections she can use, she has connections she can use. Doesn't matter if she's a good friend or bad friend. If her acquaintances do her favors, that's all that matters in this context.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48831878]Yes, but if you're making those connections in a way that makes you a terrible human being I don't think you should[/QUOTE] Okay? We already know Anita and Zoe are terrible people.
TBH you can't blame people for not knowing when it mattered most. Quinn's antics mostly occurred in obscure or gated communities before the 5 Guys incident, the paper trail's been there for a long time but the majority of it isn't easy to understand. As for Sarkeesian, there was so little to go by when her kickstarter began that I doubt [I]anyone[/I] could've guessed how authoritarian and cultish she really was. Being a corrupt prick is one thing but Sarkeesian crosses into Poe's Law territory.
[QUOTE=dannass;48816795]At least they will only kill the tumblr planet. This is why interplanetary space travel will save humanity. This world is getting cluttered with opinions and no one can get along.[/QUOTE] Intergalactic Hugboxes
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;48829657]I'm not sure about Sarkeesian, but Zoe Quinn lost all of her credibility when she slept with journalists to promote her terrible video game.[/QUOTE] Arguing against harassment as a person that is proud of her partipation in a doxxing community with a "confirmed kill" is the worst hypocrisy.
okay Asark is one thing but how the fuck is Zoe Quinn here? [editline]10th October 2015[/editline] she's the girl that fucked a bunch of guys for better reviews on her indie game right? If I'm not mistaken. How is she here?
[QUOTE=General J;48875747]okay Asark is one thing but how the fuck is Zoe Quinn here? [editline]10th October 2015[/editline] she's the girl that fucked a bunch of guys for better reviews on her indie game right? If I'm not mistaken. How is she here?[/QUOTE] She plays the victim card and has her journalist (fuck)buddies write nice things about her.
As soon as I saw this thread title, this music instantly popped into my head [video=youtube;qn7TcsT91C8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn7TcsT91C8[/video]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.