|
The Vosgian Beast posted:He means video games im just going to tell you the fighting game community is loving livid at the prospect of a marvel vs capcom game having newer versions of well known heroes (not because we're sexist or racist or anything)
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
I'm glad the friend who introduced gamergate to me was more accurate about it. His explanation was roughly "It's a bunch of fuckwits who can't stand the idea of women playing games"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
 i'm so sorry (not the least bit sorry)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:I assume by vidya he means
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Mike Cernovich's all-the-shitheads documentary SILENCED! is out. Of course the review is by Milo. What does he have to say?quote:Technically, the film is sufficient for its purpose. Almost all the interviews are static, tight shots, which do a good job showing expression and even at times emotion. "That bar couldn’t hang much lower if it was for Earthworm Track & Field." - Mammoth commenter You'll be unsurprised that the majority of the Breitbart comments are about DA JOOOOOZ
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
I remember when actual war criminal Oliver North was a consultant for a call of duty game, which is about as close to an actual ethical dilemma as video games have gotten, and not one peep was made from the ethics crowd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Uh, a poo poo ton of people took issue with that, dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Not so much the dark-enlightenment alt-reich crowd tho, which is what Rush was talking about This is a fun thread to look back upon: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/what-are-your-opinions-on-activision-and-oliver-no-546885/
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Not so much the dark-enlightenment alt-reich crowd tho, which is what Rush was talking about In 2010 there was no hashtag to lump Those People into. There was still widespread what-the-gently caress against Activision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:In 2010 there was no hashtag to lump Those People into. There was still widespread what-the-gently caress against Activision. 2012 also lol I mean I know to expect it from poptart fairy but it's still pretty funny to be all "hashtag to lump those people into" as if it's an exonym or a slur rather than the thing they picked out for themselves InediblePenguin has a new favorite as of 11:53 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:2012 People who aren't gamergaters frequently get labelled as such. Like, this is hardly an exotic new thing twitter warriors do with each other, dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:In 2010 there was no hashtag to lump Those People into. There was still widespread what-the-gently caress against Activision. Do you ever talk about anything else? I mean, seriously, do you actually have any other interests apart from white knighting this lovely little group of whiny misogynists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Do you ever talk about anything else? I mean, seriously, do you actually have any other interests apart from white knighting this lovely little group of whiny misogynists? I'm not white knighting anyone, I'm merely pointing out that the complaint about "nobody" being concerned about the ethics of Oliver North and Black Ops is an odd complaint considering that there was plenty of fuss about it. There just weren't any hashtags related to the subject - #NorthGate might have been pretty catchy though. Gamergate is a stupid, stupid thing and I have mentioned this a number of times. You have been projecting some really weird obsession onto me and it's gone from funny to just sad now, dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
The roots of gamergate go back a lot, lot longer than the visible boil it became. You had a lot of the same poo poo levelled against Stevie Case, Jade Raymond, Jennifer Hepler etc. As far as I'm aware their only 'crime' was being visible women in the industry. E: Here's an enlightening thread discussing Case's merits from 2001 Rush Limbo has a new favorite as of 13:19 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
OK...? I'm not saying people deserve to get harassed, I'm saying that there were a lot of complaints about Oliver North's involvement with Activision despite your claim otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Who made those complaints? Gamergators? That would refute the claim, which was:Rush Limbo posted:not one peep was made from the ethics crowd
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Right, but my point was that the "ethics crowd" didn't exist with any sort of hashtag at that point - it was several years before poo poo like Kotaku in Action sprung up, so the anger against Activision didn't have a neat twitter tag to file under. Activision got, rightly, raked over the coals. Sure, people may or may not have used that hashtag if it happened today, but I still think it's pretty silly to try and retroactively blame someone for not making a peep in this case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
I'd presume most people involved in the larger movement were alive for the previous event, but didn't organize to do anything about it. There are many possible reasons for that, from failure to develop a really good hashtag, to burgeoning resentful misogyny. You can probably guess which one of those I think is the most likely. If you think my position is wrong, what do you think is the best evidence against it, or the best evidence for some other explanation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
What does burgeoning resentful misogyny have to do with Oliver North? Like, plenty of poo poo in the game industry has suffered a giant backlash and this was one particular example. I just don't understand the mindset of trying to retroactively blame gamergate for something that happened years before it when plenty of actual, present day stuff has already been brought up on the past two pages.  Rather seeming like a strike against idiocy it just comes out as a really flimsy, four year late lash out. Rush even brought stuff up that's far closer to the sort of thing gamergate have been involved in, but appears stuck on Oliver North's example. e; To me it just seems like he's dismissing consumer backlash purely because it isn't attached to an engineered hashtag. poptart_fairy has a new favorite as of 14:11 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Except Gamergate wasn't and never was a genuine consumer backlash. If it was, there were plenty of avenues they could take that would have actually made a difference. Like boycotting, campaigning for change etc. As it stood they just levelled their grievances at entirely the wrong people, assuming they were actually trying in good faith to do their stated goals. The real victim of impropriety in the Zoe Quinn incident, assuming it was true (which it wasn't) would have been the journalist involved. Turns out that literally nobody in the ethics in journalism crowd gave a poo poo about the supposed breach of ethics (of which the journalist would have been guilty of, nobody else), but they sure as poo poo cared about Quinn. Wonder why that is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
I'm not defending gamergate or calling it consumer backlash, I'm asking why you think "not a peep" was heard about Oliver North working with Activitision when it was, and quite often. This and plenty of other instances of shady poo poo in the industry have been called out without needing a hashtag involved, hence why I'm questioning why you felt the need to raise the Black Ops debacle from four years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:The roots of gamergate go back a lot, lot longer than the visible boil it became. You had a lot of the same poo poo levelled against Stevie Case, Jade Raymond, Jennifer Hepler etc. I think Case probably weathered the storm of a ~30 comment thread about her on gamedev dot net without too much worry. (I was a housemate of hers way back when, it's weird hearing about her now.) She had to deal with some crap, but it wasn't until later when gamers were finding out they could get away with disgusting, career smashing amounts of harassment of women they didn't like, which was more what Hepler saw. GG was even more than that. It was in the context of Gone Home, and Anita Sarkeesian softly applying feminism 101 to video games. There was a perceived encroachment going on, and then Zoe Quinn ticked too many specific boxes gamers didn't like. I don't think it was just some sexists being even more sexist, or some omegas crazed by the idea of getting cucked. It was a reactionary explosion, basically as close as you can get to a riot on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:im just going to tell you the fighting game community is loving livid at the prospect of a marvel vs capcom game having newer versions of well known heroes (not because we're sexist or racist or anything) We are? I mean, a really huge proportion of the FGC is non-white.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
All these people were way too late anyway. The only actual scandal that I can remember was jeff gerstmann leaving gamespot and forming giantbomb because of the kane and lynch review drama. That was what 9 years (?) ago now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Jippa posted:All these people were way too late anyway. The only actual scandal that I can remember was jeff gerstmann leaving gamespot and forming giantbomb because of the kane and lynch review drama. That was what 9 years (?) ago now? Jesus, the fallout was fun. I kinda want another stunt like that pulled just to see the backlash. I'd settle for another Dorito Pope, mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Jesus, the fallout was fun. I kinda want another stunt like that pulled just to see the backlash. I'd settle for another Dorito Pope, mind. Their supposed goodness is confirmed in their minds a false history of the world in which white males cause black and female underperformance. They supposedly believe that women and blacks are equal while indulging female irresponsibility and black violence. Women are in practice treated as children, except that when a child misbehaves the child is hauled off to the responsible adult who is told to discipline his child, but women misbehave and get away with it, for no one can haul them off to the responsible male who will be told to discipline his women. In their history of the world Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo, segregation and slavery were hurtful evil crimes against blacks committed because whites hate blacks. They read and believe a press in which covers in hostile and mendacious detail every incident where a white kills a black, while piously ignoring an enormous number of incidents where blacks attack whites out of hatred inculcated into them in school, in university, and in the mass media. In fact, blacks were immensely better off under white rule in Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo than before and after, slavery was necessary because of black disinclination to work for a living, and ever since slavery whites have been carrying blacks upon their backs. Segregation was an early form of affirmative action for blacks, artificially creating a black middle class by protecting them from white competition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:What does burgeoning resentful misogyny have to do with Oliver North? Wow, I must have really hosed up my post; I'll try to break it down for you again. Here's my position given in three claims, any of which you can feel free to present arguments against:
Here's a great example of one: Sax Solo posted:GG was even more than that. It was in the context of Gone Home, and Anita Sarkeesian softly applying feminism 101 to video games. There was a perceived encroachment going on, and then Zoe Quinn ticked too many specific boxes gamers didn't like. I don't think it was just some sexists being even more sexist, or some omegas crazed by the idea of getting cucked. It was a reactionary explosion, basically as close as you can get to a riot on the internet. Good point: in this thread of all places, I should remember that for the reactionary, the problem isn't just women, it's Others, and instances/symbols of those Others gaining the legitimacy, power, and respect which belonged to Us in the Good Old Days. I think that's that's one side of the DE coin, with the other being the "neo" bit, with all the accelerationist stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:To me it sounds like you think I'm going wrong with #2, Well yeah, Rush seem to be under the impression that nobody spoke up about Oliver North's involvement when it's clear they did - there just wasn't a hashtag involved with it. Hence my comment to Rush about feeling like he's dismissing complaints that aren't shoveled into an engineered bit of social media. I mean if a celebrity waded in and started throwing around -gate terms then yeah, we probably would've gotten OliverGate or something, but trying to make out there was "not a peep" comes off as pretty silly imo. I appreciate I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:"vidya" used as a shorthand for "video (games)" indicates he's reading a lot of 4chan, if you're wondering where he gets so many of the opinions he parrots Yes I know what vidya is, I was a lovely teen when that arose out of the "why i am so bald" meme, but people specifically call /v/ "Vidya" too which is why I asked poptart_fairy posted:Well yeah, Rush seem to be under the impression that nobody spoke up about Oliver North's involvement when it's clear they did - there just wasn't a hashtag involved with it. Hence my comment to Rush about feeling like he's dismissing complaints that aren't shoveled into an engineered bit of social media. I mean if a celebrity waded in and started throwing around -gate terms then yeah, we probably would've gotten OliverGate or something, but trying to make out there was "not a peep" comes off as pretty silly imo. Since this is a funny shitposting thread about bad people and not D&D I'm pretty sure "not a peep" was an exaggeration to drive a point home. There was in fact some response to $videogames_controversy (pick your favorite one they all work here) but it generally died down quickly and everyone forgot about it. The causative factors behind Gamergate weren't even particularly egregious by actual "ethics in games journalism" standards and it generated something so big and stupid that we are literally still discussing it today right now. It's basically the only thing you ever post in this thread about, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Even if I don't post about it people like somfin run in and claim that's what I'm talking about. Posting about England's spotty coverage of Trump and calling people out on using the term retard in this thread had it dragged over to GG, for gently caress's sake.  People discuss GG poo poo in here all the time, even when there's meant to be a forum rule against it. Lets not pretend it's suddenly a big deal when I pop my head in and do it. poptart_fairy has a new favorite as of 16:05 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Their supposed goodness is confirmed in their minds a false history of the world in which white males cause black and female underperformance. They supposedly believe that women and blacks are equal while indulging female irresponsibility and black violence. Women are in practice treated as children, except that when a child misbehaves the child is hauled off to the responsible adult who is told to discipline his child, but women misbehave and get away with it, for no one can haul them off to the responsible male who will be told to discipline his women. Americans have never really understood ideological warfare. Our gut-level assumption is that everybody in the world really wants the same comfortable material success we have. We use “extremist” as a negative epithet. Even the few fanatics and revolutionary idealists we have, whatever their political flavor, expect everybody else to behave like a bourgeois. We don’t expect ideas to matter — or, when they do, we expect them to matter only because people have been flipped into a vulnerable mode by repression or poverty. Thus all our divagation about the “root causes” of Islamic terrorism, as if the terrorists’ very clear and very ideological account of their own theory and motivations is somehow not to be believed. By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists. All three put substantial effort into cultivating American proxies to influence U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy in favorable directions. Yes, the Nazis did this, through organizations like the “German-American Bund” that was outlawed when World War II went hot. Today, the Islamists are having some success at manipulating our politics through fairly transparent front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversary”, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs. The Soviets had an entire “active measures” department devoted to churning out anti-American dezinformatsiya. A classic example is the rumor that AIDS was the result of research aimed at building a ‘race bomb’ that would selectively kill black people. On a different level, in the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly. Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism. Accordingly, the Soviet espionage apparat actually ran two different kinds of network: one of spies, and one of agents of influence. The agents of influence had the minor function of recruiting spies (as, for example, when Kim Philby was brought in by one of his tutors at Cambridge), but their major function was to spread dezinformatsiya, to launch memetic weapons that would damage and weaken the West. In a previous post on Suicidalism, I identified some of the most important of the Soviet Union’s memetic weapons. Here is that list again: There is no truth, only competing agendas. All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism. There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor. The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable. Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it. The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.) For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors. When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions. As I previously observed, if you trace any of these back far enough, you’ll find a Stalinist intellectual at the bottom. (The last two items on the list, for example, came to us courtesy of Frantz Fanon. The fourth item is the Baran-Wallerstein “world system” thesis.) Most were staples of Soviet propaganda at the same time they were being promoted by “progressives” (read: Marxists and the dupes of Marxists) within the Western intelligentsia. The Soviets consciously followed the Gramscian prescription; they pursued a war of position, subverting the “leading elements” of society through their agents of influence. (See, for example, Stephen Koch’s Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals; summary by Koch here) This worked exactly as expected; their memes seeped into Western popular culture and are repeated endlessly in (for example) the products of Hollywood. Indeed, the index of Soviet success is that most of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda. It takes a significant amount of digging and rethinking and remembering, even for a lifelong anti-Communist like myself, to realize that there was a time (within the lifetime of my parents) when all of these ideas would have seemed alien, absurd, and repulsive to most people — at best, the beliefs of a nutty left-wing fringe, and at worst instruments of deliberate subversion intended to destroy the American way of life. Koch shows us that the worst-case scenario was, as it turns out now, the correct one; these ideas, like the “race bomb” rumor, really were instruments deliberately designed to destroy the American way of life. Another index of their success is that most members of the bicoastal elite can no longer speak of “the American way of life” without deprecation, irony, or an automatic and half-conscious genuflection towards the altar of political correctness. In this and other ways, the corrosive effects of Stalin’s meme war have come to utterly pervade our culture. The most paranoid and xenophobic conservatives of the Cold War were, painful though this is to admit, the closest to the truth in estimating the magnitude and subtlety of Soviet subversion. Liberal anticommunists (like myself in the 1970s) thought we were being judicious and fair-minded when we dismissed half of the Right’s complaint as crude blather. We were wrong; the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss really were guilty, the Hollywood Ten really were Stalinist tools, and all of Joseph McCarthy’s rants about “Communists in the State Department” were essentially true. The Venona transcripts and other new material leave no room for reasonable doubt on this score. While the espionage apparatus of the Soviet Union didn’t outlast it, their memetic weapons did. These memes are now coming near to crippling our culture’s response to Islamic terrorism. In this context, Jeff Goldstein has written eloquently about perhaps the most long-term dangerous of these memes — the idea that rights inhere not in sovereign individuals but identity groups, and that every identity group (except the “ruling class”) has the right to suppress criticism of itself through political means up to and including violence. Mark Brittingham (aka WildMonk) has written an excellent essay on the roots of this doctrine in Rousseau and the post-Enlightenment Romantics. It has elsewhere been analyzed and labeled as transnational progressivism. The Soviets didn’t invent it, but they promoted it heavily in a deliberate — and appallingly successful — attempt to weaken the Lockean, individualist tradition that underlies classical liberalism and the U.S. Constitution. The reduction of Western politics to a bitter war for government favor between ascriptive identity groups is exactly the outcome the Soviets wanted and worked hard to arrange. Call it what you will — various other commentators have favored ‘volk-Marxism’ or ‘postmodern leftism’. I’ve called it suicidalism. It was designed to paralyze the West against one enemy, but it’s now being used against us by another. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden so often sounds like he’s reading from back issues of Z magazine, and no accident that both constantly echo the hoariest old cliches of Soviet propaganda in the 1930s and ’40s. Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE. In Stalin’s hands, even Marxism itself was hollowed out to serve as a memetic weapon — it became increasingly nihilist, hatred-focused and destructive. The postmodern left is now defined not by what it’s for but by what it’s against: classical-liberal individualism, free markets, dead white males, America, and the idea of objective reality itself. The first step to recovery is understanding the problem. Knowing that suicidalist memes were launched at us as war weapons by the espionage apparatus of the most evil despotism in human history is in itself liberating. Liberating, too, it is to realize that the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores and Robert Fisks of the world (and their thousands of lesser imitators in faculty lounges everywhere) are not brave transgressive forward-thinkers but pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant. Brittingham and other have worried that postmodern leftism may yet win. If so, the victory would be short-lived. One of the clearest lessons of recent times (exemplified not just by kaffiyeh-wearing western leftists but by Hamas’s recent clobbering of al-Fatah in the first Palestinian elections) is that po-mo leftism is weaker than liberal individualism in one important respect; it has only the weakest defenses against absolutist fervor. Brittingham tellingly notes po-mo philosopher Richard Rorty’s realization that when the babble of conflicting tribal narratives collapses in exhaustion, the only thing left is the will to power. Again, this is by design. Lenin and Stalin wanted classical-liberal individualism replaced with something less able to resist totalitarianism, not more. Volk-Marxist fantasy and postmodern nihilism served their purposes; the emergence of an adhesive counter-ideology would not have. Thus, the Chomskys and Moores and Fisks are running a program carefully designed to dead-end at nothing. Religions are good at filling that kind of nothing. Accordingly, if transnational progressivism actually succeeds in smothering liberal individualism, its reward will be to be put to the sword by some flavor of jihadi. Whether the eventual winners are Muslims or Mormons, the future is not going to look like the fuzzy multicultural ecotopia of modern left fantasy. The death of that dream is being written in European banlieus by angry Muslim youths under the light of burning cars. In the banlieus and elsewhere, Islamist pressure makes it certain that sooner or later the West is going to vomit Stalin’s memes out of its body politic. The worst way would be through a reflex development of Western absolutism — Christian chauvinism, nativism and militarism melding into something like Francoite fascism. The self-panicking leftists who think they see that in today’s Republicans are comically wrong (as witnessed by the fact that they aren’t being systematically jailed and executed), but it is quite a plausible future for the demographically-collapsing nations of Europe. The U.S., fortunately, is still on a demographic expansion wave and will be till at least 2050. But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader” cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too. And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years. I remain more optimistic than this. I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media. The process won’t be pretty. But I fear that if the rest of us don’t hound the po-mo Left and its useful idiots out of public life with attack and ridicule and shunning, the hard Right will sooner or later get the power to do it by means that include a lot of killing. I don’t want to live in that future, and I don’t think any of my readers do, either. If we want to save a liberal, tolerant civilization for our children, we’d better get to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:http://ask.fm/St_Rev/answers/128305288958 https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/797657559712862208 If anyone wants to venture into the dumbest opinions on gamergate in a twitter rant: https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/769710770498207748
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/797657559712862208 An Irishman has been bayoneted by a British soldier, and as the Mick dies slowly in a ditch the Brit kicks him over and over, cursing him and wishing him a painful, slow death. With his last breath the Irishman asks, “Why are you so angry at us?” The Brit leans down, whispers, “You swine, we will NEVER forgive you for what we’ve done to you.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Even if I don't post about it people like somfin run in and claim that's what I'm talking about. Which hashtag were you referring to when you brought up hashtags apropos of nothing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Politifact rates this as Mostly True
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:Politifact rates this as Mostly True Stalin had the dankest memes
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:im just going to tell you the fighting game community is loving livid at the prospect of a marvel vs capcom game having newer versions of well known heroes (not because we're sexist or racist or anything) A minority of the fighting game community, maybe. Or just the ones that exclusively hang out online. But even then thats doubtful. With how diverse and open the FGC is, it's kind of mindboggling for me to think they dislike new versions because of those 2 reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Which hashtag were you referring to when you brought up hashtags apropos of nothing? Backlash doesn't need a hashtag is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Backlash doesn't need a hashtag is what I'm saying. Indeed, like the Christians from whom they descended, they are on their holy moral crusade. Unlike the Christians, their holy moral crusade is flagrantly and bald-facedly unholy and immoral, and there is simply no substitute for reinforcing in many ways large and small their unholiness and immorality with vocabulary such as… honesty manliness masculinity justice good and evil virtue honor chastity wisdom truth valor loyalty civic life civic duty upstanding citizen just deserts Christendom (if you’re into that sort of thing) Occident Orient propriety respect self-respect judgement rigor beauty sanctity sacred purity duty virility fitness temperance posterity bravery courage strength dedication faith righteousness moral responsibility authority privilege conquest patriotism Darwinism Western civilization superior order hierarchy femininity obedience demure submissive fertile barefoot and pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove … impolite moral crime indecent immoral abomination unseemly sacrilege tawdry sleazy tacky dishonorable vulgar primitive savage anthropomorphous ape niggardly ostentatious fraudulent stigma, stigmatize pervert, perversion malefactor desecrate ugly shrew nag scold harridan virago shame guilt promiscuity cretin bum rake virgin wife bastard, bastardy illegitimacy slut coward lout spinster, barren spinster harlot welfare queen rabble hoi polloi unwashed masses collaborator traitor treason queer eunuch effeminate, effiminacy dyke negro Oriental Indian brute barbarian fallen woman grifter freeloader bankrupt Yes, I keep a list, and feel free to add to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Archer666 posted:A minority of the fighting game community, maybe. Or just the ones that exclusively hang out online. But even then thats doubtful. The progressive model of normie gender relations is incomplete. On the one hand, it’s true that, under normie gender relations, men lead and women follow; but on the other hand, it’s also true that men are supposed to, for example, open doors for women. Nobody believes that women can’t open doors; so why are men supposed to do it for them? You could say that it’s because of the patriarchy — men want women to be weak and dependent on men — but then you’re saying that 51% of the population have no agency, in order to bolster a theory that can explain these two things, but can’t explain, say, the Scott Aaronson affair. Let’s make the bold and controversial assumption that women have agency — that is, that they can, to some extent, shape normie gender relations to fit their interests. What sorts of interests do normie women have? Do they want partnerships of equals with soft, prosocial men in touch with their emotions? Do they want that sort of metaphorical homosexuality? Lol, no. That ‘nice guys’ are clueless dorks with entitlement complexes doesn’t mean chicks don’t dig ‘bad boys’. Here’s a model with more predictive power: normie gender relations consists of a tacit agreement, where men agree to perform attractiveness to the abstract concept of the normie woman (i.e. strength, stoicism, emotionlessness, measured applications of violent anger, etc. — if you prefer, ‘toxic masculinity’) and women agree to perform attractiveness to the abstract concept of the normie man (i.e. weakness and dependence), and each sex enforces, and women especially are encouraged to enforce, normie gender relations by responding to lack of attractiveness with, and genuinely feeling lack of attraction as, disgust. The woman performs being scared by a spider, and the man performs being tough and killing it. If the woman doesn’t perform being scared, the man performs being disgusted; if the man doesn’t perform being tough, the woman performs being disgusted. If you’re thinking of this as lifestyle D/s performed by people not self-aware enough to realize that’s what they’re doing or what they want, you’re totally wrong: it’s not limited to relationships. It’s the default mode of relation between the sexes — it’s not really even about attractiveness, just about What Is Done. It’s just etiquette. The dynamic even shapes interactions within the family. Another way to conceptualize it (a better way, if you’re planning a date) is as an exchange of experiences: men provide experiences for women, and get in return the experience, facilitated by the woman, of Being A Man. This model explains why men are expected to lead, why women are expected to follow, why men are expected to open doors for women, why Scott Aaronson faced so much backlash (he didn’t hold up his end of the bargain, because he performed unattractiveness and unmanliness, admitted to having once felt sad about the thing, etc., so he had to be punished for it, by the unconscious mechanism of women conflating lack of attraction with disgust), why men use disgust to pressure women into not shaving their armpits or whatever, why women respond to that pressure by making a point of performing disgustingness at them, and — why adding women to all-male groups completely changes the dynamic. The implicit threat isn’t an accusation of sexism, although that’s one idiom it can use — it’s that the men suddenly have to hold up the male end of the bargain, both in order to be attractive to the woman (because getting her interested in you confers status) and in order to not face the penalty for breaking it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:24
|
|