Holy shit, did we just have an internet discussion about feminism that ended in civil discourse?

Fucking hell, that's gotta be a first.

I feel an overpowering urge to descend into hyperbole and vitriol!

OK, that's more like it to me. No, we don't need AS MUCH protection (in general).
Again, I think you have missed what a "Master" is. Read his description with an eye towards "dean" and I think you'll get my point. He's not PR, or HR, he facilitates student activities, and sets the 'tone' on campus...so his job is really to teach these people that they're 100% wrong about what college is about and for, and to show them (EDIT: but not necessarily on an individual basis) that 'safe space' is the opposite of what college is for... at least that's what I get from his own words.
No, this instance isn't JUST about shouting at men and calling them "bad". I seriously doubt the vitriol would have been as thickly directed at his wife, though. Maybe I'm wrong, these girls are really just angry at their own failings and screaming at the world. I blame their parents for never telling them they aren't special snowflakes, better and cuter than everyone else.
The students are obviously wrong about what they are entitled to.
I thought I was clear...I guess not....I mean-would you say to them that they don't need 'protection'....as you said originally?

EDIT:I feel like you've/they've made the mistake of thinking that, since most positions of power are held by men, most men have power. I know that's what '3rd wave feminists' think...I've heard them say it. It's not true. That's kind of my point about the male rape victim...men are not always the one's holding the powerful position, and thinking they are simply perpetrates the inequality, but tries to swing it to the other side. That's not progress.

No. Try reading again. I am threatening to ban you if you continue with personal ad hom attacks, which are not allowed. When you say things like
"I am speaking to someone who doesn't even know the language he is speaking, you see my amusement?
I cant help it if your general ignorance seeps into every pore of your conscious existence, and I must admit it should be above me(or anyone, for that matter), to aggravate someone of such an argy-bargy disposition. However, maybe someday the light-bulb will turn on inside your head, and you might finally see past the world you've been spoon-fed since birth."

...it's called an 'ad hom attack', it means moving from discussion of ideas to simple personal attacks, which you started, and which is not allowed here and is a bannable offence.

Let's examine.
You posted a vitriolic politically charged, contradictory post, insulting everyone you discussed.
I replied incredulously because you actually said "I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...", which is so patently ridiculous it required me to ridicule it...but not YOU.
You replied with some personal ad hom attacks on my person because you didn't like my position.
I (inappropriately) replied in kind. (I should have just told you to stop the first time or you'll be banned, but I gave you the benefit of a doubt...the first time).
You post more personal insults and now try to characterize that as 'cordial'.
I tell you that your personal insults are not allowed here (try reading the site rules) and tell you if you continue them I'll move to ban you.

You run to who you think is an admin for help...he'll likely tell you to stop personally insulting people you don't know and stick to the topic, because.....

What can't I say in a comment?
We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community or simply ban you outright.

EDIT: What exactly is an Aggro manner? I understand aggro, but not Aggro.

Um...try reading again. I see now that the English language is apparently hard for you. Here, I'll go ahead and quote it for you...."I re-read my entire post, and not a single vulgar word IMO. One abbreviation of a vulgar word." I guess when I wrote "one abbreviation of a vulgar word" you read that as "no sign of vulgar language, even abbreviated". You might want to go back to Cambridge and take English 101.

Ahhh, I see...well then a big old F- You right back to you for all your ridiculous vulgar insulting bullshit.

You might want to learn English as it's used...and you might want to look in a mirror. I'm WRITING to someone who not only seemingly doesn't know to read or use the English language, and he's been a smarmy douche about it to boot. "Fuck you" is vulgar, "Hillary is not a convict" is not vulgar. By your definition, your entire post thread is vulgar, as it is certainly lacking sophistication or good taste, is totally unrefined, ignorant, hateful, now vitriolic, sesquipedalian in the extreme, completely devoid of fiscal responsibility or even consideration, and is lacking in all common sense. It is, indeed, the exact mindset of people in a Fox bubble. (Yeah, Fox, you know, that world wide political news giant you claim to have never heard of...talk about ignorance...holy crap, that's not just ignorant, it's ignant. Look that one up.)

So you know what people mean when they say -Vulgar : Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude:

Perhaps you forgot that you clearly wrote that what you specifically meant by 'vulgar' was "cursing", not "Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined"...obviously you didn't read your own post, or thought I didn't have the capability to remember. So sad for you. Again, just like Fox bubble people, when your argument is torn to shreds, you just change what you claim your argument was and move on to make more unsophisticated argument.

I'm pretty sure you've broken or burnt out your bulb there, buddy. You WERE amusing until you were contradicted and you got angry and decided to move from being just smarmy on to silly, infantile, completely wrong ad hom attacks against someone you don't know rather than discussion. It's totally not above me to aggravate someone of such a '6 year old spoiled little girl' disposition, but it's not something I intend to spend much time on.

I think you better quit the internet, you're totally doing it wrong.

You've just lost a 'friend' here, one that's helped you repeatedly here already. You can go stamp your feet and scream at the walls in your room now. Expect no further help from me in navigating the site...and expect to be banned if you continue the ad hom attacks against me.

WTF?!? "Tangible plan"? What on earth could you possibly mean by that?
The "plan" to round up over 11 million people and deport them, but with zero details about it?
The "plan" to make Mexico pay to build a 2500 mile wall, with zero details about how?
The "plan" to illegally deny fugitives entry to states because, you know, Muslims are bad...MmmmK?
The "plan" to skew the tax system even more in favor of those in the top 5%, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes?
His "plan" to be a smarmy, dickish, douchebag to anyone that isn't in his camp...but also to completely control those people to make them do exactly what he wants...again with zero details how he plans to do so?
The "plan" to force China to...I don't know...ignore all our debt and treat us like the boss we are?

As for Clinton's being 'currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department.'...the "email scandal" has, just like Benghazi, turned up absolutely zero illegal behavior and is nothing more than a red herring designed by the (absolutely not) "conservative" side of our political system, has gone absolutely no where, and only matters to people who would NEVER have voted for her in the first place...if you think differently, you really need to get out of the Fox bubble and look around at reality for a bit.

Little could be more disastrous for the country than having that vitriolic humanoid pumpkin as our 'leader', since the only successful leading he's ever done is leading people to hate each other, and leading far more people to hate HIM. He's a fairly terrible business man, successful only due to starting with a "tiny loan" (his words, really more of a gift from daddy) of a million dollars and being forced to allow others to take control of his investments. He's a bold faced liar, in fact the truth does not seem to be palatable to him in the least....and he's clearly admitted that in his books and sees it as a good thing to hyper exaggerate and minimize. He's a 'good Christian', who's been divorced how many times? There's no way on earth his plans would even be tried. He (and other republican candidates) don't even have a grasp of what the president does or how, claiming they'll 'repeal the ACA on day one', and they'll discard multiple government departments...somethings the president simply CAN'T just do...along with most of their other ridiculous, impossible 'plans'. They all know they wouldn't actually have that power, yet they all lie to you and tell you they will do the hateful things they've convinced you are the right thing to do by themselves. Fortunately our system is designed so that one nutjob, or even one party of nutjobs can't change laws precipitously.

I hate to tell you, but Bernie Sanders is not excluded for being honest and knowledgeable. ALL candidates are socialist, he's just honest enough to admit it. Tax breaks for the rich...socialism. Bailouts for the airlines and banks...socialism. Social security...socialism. Medicare...socialism. "jobs programs"...socialism. Public parks...socialism. Public roads...socialism. Need I go on?

Your mischaracterization of Obama's record is so patently ridiculous it's not worth contradicting.

^ There appears to be a lot of sand in my vagina today! Sorry if that came across as overly harsh.

It would appear arguing with SJW trolls on youtube is harmful to ones soul.

Pretty sure I'm to some extent projecting my frustration with other similar styles of movement here. Though my underlying concern about such propaganda still stands I think. (& PETA can still more or less fuck off)


@iaui I have absolutely nothing against you and none of my vitriol was at all directed towards yourself. This was a perfectly legit thing to be sifting and I would hate for you to take anything I've said as an attack on yourself.

I'm not even sure it was really an attack on this specific movement, outside the insidious nature of it's propaganda.

It just left a bitter taste and much like I find myself having to stand up for people I deeply dislike and disagree with (re: freedom of expression). I also find myself having to take people to task even though I might like them or agree with the underlying premise of their position (a bad argument is a bad argument).

I'm now going to go away and watch frolicking kittens until I stop feeling like such a touchy twat...

You have heard of constitutional amendments, haven't you? In fact, one of the quotes I produced from former Mayor, Ed Koch, even discussed that fact.

Please explain which FACTS that I have repeated are incorrect. So far all you have been able to do is curse me, accuse me of being retarded, and literally ignored anything I have said so that you can continue with your vitriol. I don't even know you and you seem to have a major issue with me.

The reason why I put up the list of deaths is because you don't see knee jerk actions in the news over those methods of dying, typically. You do see it over gun deaths because they are sensationalized far beyond the level of anything else, part of which is the reason I think we are having more mass shootings. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, get your 15 minutes of fame, then shooting people is a guaranteed method.

I do believe we need additional controls on weapons; one that I think would help greatly is ACS (http://www.ammocoding.com/). I am also not an NRA member and don't agree with a lot of the methods they use. I DO believe wholeheartedly in my right to own semi automatic handguns and rifles. If you still have a problem with me over that, I can't help it. But if you continue to be confrontational, then I don't think we have anything further to talk about.

No, you actually are wrong. You wagered that this kind of vitriolic review is his "Schlick". And it's trivially easy to demonstrate that it isn't.

You're fully entitled to like it or dislike it, but you stated something that is factually incorrect.

I disagree with the "we all need Jesus" bit. Other than that, unremarkable stuff of the type many non-religious (and some religious) voices have been saying since the gay rights movement broke the shell. Only notable for that fact that it's coming out of this particular vitriolic preacher.

Kinda feel the same way ninety seconds into this review as the gentleman stated he felt after ninety minutes into the film in question. I would wager to guess that this is his shtick and his other reviews tend to run in a similar, vitriolic vein.

όχι, bitches!

Or as a cartoon, if you prefer.

Edit: With all the nasty fearmongering by the Greek private media and the corrupt elite, it takes balls of steel to basically tell them to fuck off. The Greek economy is fucked³, politicians from the entire Eurozone were arguing for, even demanding the Syriza government to step down, so they can resume business as usual with either the old nepotic elite or freshly installed technocrats. Piss off, the demos replied.

The result itself doesn't matter that much. The process itself, like the Scottish referendum, might have set into motion a development that cannot be stopped nor undone.

Edit #2: the vitriol and pure hatred from the conservatives and many social-democrats is despicable. What champions of democracy they are. Tsipras and Varoufakis should channel their inner FDR and welcome their hatred.

If we take for granted the need for cost cutting, it would be only logical, if not an outright neccessity in a democracy, to leave the details up to the local representatives. Payment of X Euros expected by mm/dd/yy, figure it out yourselves.

Why do it any other way?

Well, you know the three most discussed possibilities as well as I do: shock doctrine, an attempt to force Syriza to commit political suicide, and bureaucratic automatisms.

During the first stages of this facade, I would have put my money square on shock doctrine. The measures are just too damn beneficial to the "there is no society" kind of thinking. It's horseshit, economically, and tremendously damaging, socially.

Replacing Syriza with the Old Guard seems quite appealing, given the behind-the-scenes deals with the nepotistic elite as a means to facilitate a smoother transitition once those pesky commies are out of the picture. The vitriol against Varoufakis is just staggering in this regard. News of the World got nothing compared to what our respectable media has hurled at Varoufakis and Tsipras.

My take on the automatisms on the other hand is rooted in how our politicians and our public has been arguing this entire time. Neoliberalism is the gospel, dissent is heresy. Privatisation is good, cutting wages is good, flexible labour market is good, taxation of wealth is bad, deficit is bad, surplus is good. They drank the kool aid, they are in it hook, line and sinker.

And as a result, the diagnosis is always the same, and so is the treatment. And fuck me for using this ass of a metaphor, given how the language used is the most subtle means of manipulation. "Rescue" the Greeks, "drowning" in debt, "tighten your belt". How about: food only on five days a week, grandma gets to croak on diabetes and your baby boy dies of diphtheria.

Yes, I had a fucked up day. The discussion in parliament about the "Greek problem" was a disgrace and high treason of the humanistic ideas that are supposed to be the foundation of the European Union.

As a "black person" .. fuck off.

If you wanna pick a fight with me, i can get all in your shit too.

Tho I try to save most of my vitriol for folks who really deserve it, like Lantern.

But there's plenty to go around.

Seriously, back off.

p.s. -

If you really want to whine about how your offended when someone calls "white people" on your white privilege..

http://videosift.com/talk/Privilege-aka-Why-Ive-Never-Been-Afraid-of-Being-Raped

What?
Try reading. Your entire post makes no sense except as a trolling attempt.

I don't "see how my arguments don't hold water", I never said anything of the sort, and you can't explain how they don't, still. In fact, you can't seem to even comprehend my argument. You certainly haven't replied to it.

What I did day is I was incorrect about one minor point because apparently she canceled the one event NOT on the advice of the police (even though at the time that's what was reported)....but because the police in this case didn't take safety or death threats seriously at all and refused to limit firearms at the event in any way or offer her/the audience any protection, so canceling this one event was intelligent and proper.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp

You have not shown her to be a 'full of shit con artist'. For your proof of her evilness and hatred and derision of sex workers, you pointed me to 2 vitriolic commentaries about a single innocuous phrase she said with no context to show her intent/meaning, and a third completely unrelated article about Westborough Church, and now you say that proves something? Still better than your first try which turned out to be by a guy who begins by clearly explaining how his organization cuts and re-edits videos to show what he wants rather than what actually happened. Who's full of shit now?

I never said "But if". Please stop making shit up to get angry about, it's the third time in this thread alone that you've attributed things I never said to me, twice in this single post. That's a useless infantile trolling argument style right there.

And so now you make up your own ridiculous, statistically impossible "What if" scenario to prove....? I guess to prove that you'll make up and believe any crazy thing rather than concede there was a specific danger she attempted to avoid (and I will note she didn't cancel other events where firearms would NOT be allowed inside, even after the threats, so what's your point in the first place?)


I made the point quite clearly above, I'll repeat it for your convenience. If this was an airplane flight with a bomb threat, it would have been canceled. It's statistically far more likely that the shooting threat is credible than any airplane bombing threat, so if it's reasonable to cancel the threatened flight (and they do), it's more reasonable to cancel the event.

You're just trolling here now, you're not making any salient point and you're just blatantly making things up to argue about. I think you're just pushing to be ignored now.

EDIT: and damn, I totally missed the racist bit the first time through your post. " ..What if that "good guy with gun vs. black bad guy with a gun" bullshit actually worked out." I'm thinking it's a mistake to continue engaging someone I would avoid in real life like the plague, so buh bye.

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.