Hobo Erotica posted:

Thanks for the link. Did you read through to the examples though?

This is her "victim blaming":

"Let me be clear: sexual assault is never the fault of the victim. Neither is being hit by a drunk driver. The sole person to blame for such crimes is the perpetrator. But teaching girls how to reduce their risk of sexual assault is not the same thing as victim blaming. It’s not. And we must stop confusing the two."

Seems reasonable?

This is her being "deeply whorephobic":

"If you are an adult woman who is not suffering from a mental illness, addiction or sexual, physical or emotional abuse, who has not been trafficked or exploited or co-erced into sexual slavery and who is CHOOSING of her own free will to sell sex?
I respect that. I’m cool with that. I recently listened to a fascinating podcast with a sex worker whose clients have disabilities. We’ll be publishing a story about her soon. I’m certainly not interested in demonising sex workers – I’d never do that.

But no, that doesn’t mean I see your career choice as something I’d want my daughter to aspire to. Or my sons.... Accepting the free choices made by other women does not mean you have to aspire to them or advocate them."

Again, we're hating her for this? I mean I can see where it's coming from here at least, because yes, there is an implication that there is something wrong with sex work, and our society could arguably do with out that stigma. But far out, if you've got to drill that far down to someone saying that she'd rather her kids didn't aspire to be a sex worker to call her a poo poo person then gently caress. Find me a majority of women who say they want their kids to be sex workers and I'd question their honesty.

As for the payment thing, the Mumbrella article lays it out pretty clearly. The used to accept unpaid voluntary submissions, which most publications do, now they pay $50, and have a large paid staff contributing most of the content. Not seeing a huge deal. I'm not going to bat too hard for this one but it's still not eliciting much outrage from me.

It's like if you don't repeat the collective mantras letter for letter, if you have any personal nuance, you're hounded out of town. It doesn't seem like a constructive discourse.

And so the current example, where she introduces an adoring interview with a logistical issue which directly relates to the subject at hand. She revealed that a woman who wrote a book about how fat people experience the world differently and in ways we would not expect, experiences the world differently and in ways we would not expect. The subject was unhappy, she made a mistake, and apologized unreservedly. And everyone pounces on her again, with a visciousness that seems wildly disproportionate.

The article you posted even admitted that the pile on was questionable:

"Allowing other women their honest mistakes and teachable moments is vital to the whole movement advancing and opening up to make space for those diverse women who are often shut out by straight white supremacy. Sometimes calling out is just correcting and moving on.

Yesterday I was unusually vocal on Twitter (a platform I rarely use and don’t totally understand) about the Gay/Freedman incident. Not only did I post about it myself, I joined other threads to express my outrage. As I piled on and on, I felt the gleeful bubbles of drama build inside me. I don’t particularly like Freedman, or Mamamia, so part of me was probably thrilled to have a justifiable reason to lay into her (and the organisation itself).

But how much of my vitriol was a legitimate response to Freedman’s bad behaviour, and how much was an excuse to be mean about a woman I did not like? That question can be an uncomfortable one. I was made more uncomfortable still when I joined a thread on a women writer’s Facebook group dedicated to the incident, which quickly devolved into some thorough Freedman-bashing. Over the past 24 hours, Junkee has deleted a number of abusive Facebook comments under their stories on the incident. Freedman was repeatedly called names like “c*nt”.

I guess that's about as good an explanation as we'll get.

Starshark posted:

I'm sorry that priests repeatedly raped you and this was covered up by the Church. Have you thought about letting God into your heart?

Hobo Erotica posted:

Thanks for the link. Did you read through to the examples though?

This is her "victim blaming":

"Let me be clear: sexual assault is never the fault of the victim. Neither is being hit by a drunk driver. The sole person to blame for such crimes is the perpetrator. But teaching girls how to reduce their risk of sexual assault is not the same thing as victim blaming. It’s not. And we must stop confusing the two."

Seems reasonable?

This is her being "deeply whorephobic":

"If you are an adult woman who is not suffering from a mental illness, addiction or sexual, physical or emotional abuse, who has not been trafficked or exploited or co-erced into sexual slavery and who is CHOOSING of her own free will to sell sex?
I respect that. I’m cool with that. I recently listened to a fascinating podcast with a sex worker whose clients have disabilities. We’ll be publishing a story about her soon. I’m certainly not interested in demonising sex workers – I’d never do that.

But no, that doesn’t mean I see your career choice as something I’d want my daughter to aspire to. Or my sons.... Accepting the free choices made by other women does not mean you have to aspire to them or advocate them."

Again, we're hating her for this? I mean I can see where it's coming from here at least, because yes, there is an implication that there is something wrong with sex work, and our society could arguably do with out that stigma. But far out, if you've got to drill that far down to someone saying that she'd rather her kids didn't aspire to be a sex worker to call her a poo poo person then gently caress. Find me a majority of women who say they want their kids to be sex workers and I'd question their honesty.

As for the payment thing, the Mumbrella article lays it out pretty clearly. The used to accept unpaid voluntary submissions, which most publications do, now they pay $50, and have a large paid staff contributing most of the content. Not seeing a huge deal. I'm not going to bat too hard for this one but it's still not eliciting much outrage from me.

It's like if you don't repeat the collective mantras letter for letter, if you have any personal nuance, you're hounded out of town. It doesn't seem like a constructive discourse.

And so the current example, where she introduces an adoring interview with a logistical issue which directly relates to the subject at hand. She revealed that a woman who wrote a book about how fat people experience the world differently and in ways we would not expect, experiences the world differently and in ways we would not expect. The subject was unhappy, she made a mistake, and apologized unreservedly. And everyone pounces on her again, with a visciousness that seems wildly disproportionate.

The article you posted even admitted that the pile on was questionable:

"Allowing other women their honest mistakes and teachable moments is vital to the whole movement advancing and opening up to make space for those diverse women who are often shut out by straight white supremacy. Sometimes calling out is just correcting and moving on.

Yesterday I was unusually vocal on Twitter (a platform I rarely use and don’t totally understand) about the Gay/Freedman incident. Not only did I post about it myself, I joined other threads to express my outrage. As I piled on and on, I felt the gleeful bubbles of drama build inside me. I don’t particularly like Freedman, or Mamamia, so part of me was probably thrilled to have a justifiable reason to lay into her (and the organisation itself).

But how much of my vitriol was a legitimate response to Freedman’s bad behaviour, and how much was an excuse to be mean about a woman I did not like? That question can be an uncomfortable one. I was made more uncomfortable still when I joined a thread on a women writer’s Facebook group dedicated to the incident, which quickly devolved into some thorough Freedman-bashing. Over the past 24 hours, Junkee has deleted a number of abusive Facebook comments under their stories on the incident. Freedman was repeatedly called names like “c*nt”.

I guess that's about as good an explanation as we'll get.

Birdstrike posted:

you want to bang mia christ we get it already

Hobo Erotica posted:

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne..._medium=Twitter

Thanks Daily Telegraph

quote:

State Government documents have warned up to 2,500 buildings in New South Wales could be fitted with flammable cladding similar to that which was engulfed in the London Grenfell Tower fire this week.

Bogan King posted:

Audio in link.

DancingShade posted:

aka "I'm a retired boomer and only just discovered Tomb Raider and Google image search"

snoremac posted:

wtf is this caleb bond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHx5NZxt55Q

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

These captions are classic:

NTRabbit posted:

Cortana's cleavage is neither unrealistically large, nor gravity defying. Moralisers gotta moralise though.

NTRabbit posted:

Anidav posted:

I think Laurie Oaks is a Liberal fucktard who leaked it to make Trumbles appear more human

Hobo Erotica posted:

I get the joke and all but you can see how juvenile this is, right?

So is there any debate or discussion in D&D these days? Or the public shaming of women with opinions is fine even if the reasons don't really hold up to the slightest scrutiny and lol if you actually give them any scrutiny?

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

Unless there is a window in the middle of her panties I'm not sure what could be in the censored picture that isn't already shown in the others. A sinful belly button?

Hobo Erotica posted:

I get the joke and all but you can see how juvenile this is, right?

So is there any debate or discussion in D&D these days? Or the public shaming of women with opinions is fine even if the reasons don't really hold up to the slightest scrutiny and lol if you actually give them any scrutiny?

Hobo Erotica posted:

Thanks for the link. Did you read through to the examples though?

This is her "victim blaming":

"Let me be clear: sexual assault is never the fault of the victim. Neither is being hit by a drunk driver. The sole person to blame for such crimes is the perpetrator. But teaching girls how to reduce their risk of sexual assault is not the same thing as victim blaming. It’s not. And we must stop confusing the two."

Seems reasonable?

This is her being "deeply whorephobic":

"If you are an adult woman who is not suffering from a mental illness, addiction or sexual, physical or emotional abuse, who has not been trafficked or exploited or co-erced into sexual slavery and who is CHOOSING of her own free will to sell sex?
I respect that. I’m cool with that. I recently listened to a fascinating podcast with a sex worker whose clients have disabilities. We’ll be publishing a story about her soon. I’m certainly not interested in demonising sex workers – I’d never do that.

But no, that doesn’t mean I see your career choice as something I’d want my daughter to aspire to. Or my sons.... Accepting the free choices made by other women does not mean you have to aspire to them or advocate them."

Again, we're hating her for this? I mean I can see where it's coming from here at least, because yes, there is an implication that there is something wrong with sex work, and our society could arguably do with out that stigma. But far out, if you've got to drill that far down to someone saying that she'd rather her kids didn't aspire to be a sex worker to call her a poo poo person then gently caress. Find me a majority of women who say they want their kids to be sex workers and I'd question their honesty.

As for the payment thing, the Mumbrella article lays it out pretty clearly. The used to accept unpaid voluntary submissions, which most publications do, now they pay $50, and have a large paid staff contributing most of the content. Not seeing a huge deal. I'm not going to bat too hard for this one but it's still not eliciting much outrage from me.

It's like if you don't repeat the collective mantras letter for letter, if you have any personal nuance, you're hounded out of town. It doesn't seem like a constructive discourse.

And so the current example, where she introduces an adoring interview with a logistical issue which directly relates to the subject at hand. She revealed that a woman who wrote a book about how fat people experience the world differently and in ways we would not expect, experiences the world differently and in ways we would not expect. The subject was unhappy, she made a mistake, and apologized unreservedly. And everyone pounces on her again, with a visciousness that seems wildly disproportionate.

The article you posted even admitted that the pile on was questionable:

"Allowing other women their honest mistakes and teachable moments is vital to the whole movement advancing and opening up to make space for those diverse women who are often shut out by straight white supremacy. Sometimes calling out is just correcting and moving on.

Yesterday I was unusually vocal on Twitter (a platform I rarely use and don’t totally understand) about the Gay/Freedman incident. Not only did I post about it myself, I joined other threads to express my outrage. As I piled on and on, I felt the gleeful bubbles of drama build inside me. I don’t particularly like Freedman, or Mamamia, so part of me was probably thrilled to have a justifiable reason to lay into her (and the organisation itself).

But how much of my vitriol was a legitimate response to Freedman’s bad behaviour, and how much was an excuse to be mean about a woman I did not like? That question can be an uncomfortable one. I was made more uncomfortable still when I joined a thread on a women writer’s Facebook group dedicated to the incident, which quickly devolved into some thorough Freedman-bashing. Over the past 24 hours, Junkee has deleted a number of abusive Facebook comments under their stories on the incident. Freedman was repeatedly called names like “c*nt”.

I guess that's about as good an explanation as we'll get.

Hobo Erotica posted:

I get the joke and all but you can see how juvenile this is, right?

So is there any debate or discussion in D&D these days? Or the public shaming of women with opinions is fine even if the reasons don't really hold up to the slightest scrutiny and lol if you actually give them any scrutiny?

Other posted:

A quick google image search found a twitter post where someone points out it's not actually from the game and it's instead a fan made render grabbed from someone's DeviantArt
https://twitter.com/kungfuman316/status/873813568759754753

Milky Moor posted:

*looks over at feminist frequency who 3/4 this thread probably thinks is amazingly perceptive and probably backed the kickstarter*

ha ha yeah!! gently caress you daily telegraph!! as if depictions of women could ever be troubling or weird!!!

hooman posted:

Lol "journalism"

EDIT Also christ look at the size of that left hand. She could palm a loving basketball.

NTRabbit posted:

Shame on you for not recognising the Atlanta Dream's starting centre Damiris Dantas

Starshark posted:

Is the miserable gently caress even out of surgery yet.

Milky Moor posted:

*looks over at feminist frequency who 3/4 this thread probably thinks is amazingly perceptive and probably backed the kickstarter*

ha ha yeah!! gently caress you daily telegraph!! as if depictions of women could ever be troubling or weird!!!

Hobo Erotica posted:

Thanks for the link. Did you read through to the examples though?



I guess that's about as good an explanation as we'll get.

Starshark posted:

I guess it looks like you're railing about a news story that's tomorrow's fish and chip paper. Freedman's news service made a blunder and some people are making too big a deal about it. I don't see those people in this thread. Mamamia isn't above criticism in this instance. But mainly you've written a minor essay about something that really doesn't seem that important.

hooman posted:

Lol "journalism"

EDIT Also christ look at the size of that left hand. She could palm a loving basketball.