I did a few months ago, so I lowered my sugar consumption like from drinks. Doctors didn't say I have diabetes. However, they did say I have high blood pressures (family tree members have it and had to take daily tablets) and very low vitamin D (not an outdoor guy; taking pills and trying to go outside for at least 15 minutes per day). I have lots of allergies (itches, leaks, etc.) too.

1-Rename this video plz...it has nothing to do with the content. 2-Birth control, yes. Just implement social birth control and boom, we stop having kids. This means improving lives, etc.
.
BUT. C-It is also about consumption. For example, you wouldn't argue that we need to reduce the tiger population because hundreds of humans are dying to them every year when just one tiger is kept in a village that causes 95% of human to tiger deaths.

What I mean by that is the "advanced" nations certainly need population control, far greater than the zero population growth numbers we have, and we need to go in to the negatives significantly before our resources run out. As far as the populated backwoods nations, they can afford to be populated.

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. By god, I will drag people kicking and screaming into making actual arguments with real data if it kills me.

That looks interesting. Does it account for transmission losses? What about areas like the UK with high energy consumption but little sunlight?

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

Wait.. overweight people don't have control of their lives?

Good food isn't necessarily just rabbit food. Organic food for example, tastes wonderful. Yes it's expensive to buy pre-packated organic foods in the grocery store but joining a local co-op or community of organic farmers in your area can save a lot of money.

Cook with raw ingredients, significantly cut prepackaged or fast food/restaurant meals. A lot of things considered unhealthy just a few years ago are being revealed to be very good for you, like butter, whole milk (especially unpasteurized). Meats are fine in moderation, even red meat is really good for you if you reduce over-all consumption of it.

Healthy food can be absolutely delicious, it just takes a bit of prep time and some cooking skill. Eating healthy doesn't mean 24/7 salad with a side of salad.

The inference being that I have a choice..? =) We don't in Aus.

But you're missing the point, X >= 1 feed in tariffs are being subsidised by other users on the grid. You upload your power regardless of demand peaks (so you could be sending power when it really isn't required). Electricity companies are not going to massively drop production of regular power as it takes a considerable amount of time to spool up/down baseload production, and they are still going to switch on high cost gas turbines during peak load just in case a big old cloud blocks out the sun for an hour or so and solar production falls in a heap...

And peak usage times are usually ~8-9am (schools and business start up, switch computers and air con on etc) before solar production really kicks in, and later in the afternoon when it get's hotter, people are getting ready for dinner. If you have significant daylight savings time shifts, then you can certainly get better production when peak demand in the early evening is occurring. If the panels are facing west rather than east or north (because that's where you maximise production and make the most money... =)

As for "the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous", I didn't say that it did, just that it's return on that energy invested is comparatively poor. You coal analogy is patently wrong though. Depending on which source you go to, coal is anywhere from 30:1 to 50:1 for EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's cheap to obtain, burn and dispose of the waste, despite being toxic/radioactive.

eg. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

When you talk about solar PV and the energy required to make it, you're not just talking about the production line, you're talking mining the silicon, purifying, the wasted wafers which aren't up to snuff, the cost of the workers and the power that goes in to building, transporting etc, lifetime maintenance, loss of production over time and disposal. The above link puts PV at the low 1.5-3:1 which is well beneath the roughly 7:1 required to sustain our modern society (and does not cover the massive increases in energy demand and consumption from developing countries). And as the author of the article notes, these are unbuffered values. If you add buffering to load shift, the sums get even worse.

"Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?"

I didn't say solar was a bad deal, I said it's a poor way to reduce carbon pollution. If the electricity company you are connected to is willing to pay high feed in tariffs to you and you save cash, that's great, but that doesn't automagically (intentional typo mean that solar PV is making any sort of serious inroads in to reducing carbon pollution.

If we're going to fix man made climate change, we need to be prepared to pay a far higher cost and worry less about our hip pockets. Nuke might not be economically viable without causing jumps in bills, but in terms of the energy output it provides over it's life time, it is one of the highest returns in energy for the energy invested in building it, paired with very low carbon emissions.

Obviously, the figures on EROEI depend on which article you read, as it's a very complex number to work out (and will always be an approximation), but it's fairly commonly acknowledged by people who do not have a vested interest in solar PV (vs low carbon power sources in general) that PV is a feel good technology that doesn't actually do a hell of a lot in terms of carbon reduction.

To claim that the collective non-consumption of 3%ish of the country is not taken into account in meat production is a pretty dim outlook of the intelligence of food executives. Of course one vegetarian doesn't make much difference. Neither does one vote or one person's taxes. If you're railing against incremental action, you'll have problems with a lot more than people's dietary choices.

On the other hand, the business about soy consumption is a baffling new argument circulating the internet. I say baffling, because it only takes about 15 seconds of hard thinking to debunk. (Hint: animals eat soy, you eat animals). Almonds, of course, are as optional for vegans as everyone else.

But all of this is a sideshow. The real point is that I make choices that do no one any harm and make me feel better. You on the other hand apparently go sifting through the internet for arguments against my lifestyle, fail to subject those arguments to even cursory critical thinking in your zeal, and parrot them on a video sharing community while proudly declaring your loathing for people like me.

I think this says a lot more about your relationship to eating animals than it does about mine.

It's not an us vs. them or you against me thing. A Vegan diet is simply unnecessary and doesn't do anything good what a vegetarian diet can do as well. You're not healthier because you don't drink milk. You're not helping any animals because the vast, vast majority of mankind still prefers meat and that industry is still globalized, trying to produce as cheap as possible. All you do by going vegan is increasing the consumption of soybeans and almonds.
It's a silly restriction on what you eat that forces you to constantly emulate the very products you want to avoid with inferior and/or costlier products.
It's the same with that even more stupid food trend of gluten-free products. Don't have celiac disease? Fuck right off! If you don't have medical reasons (and there a few), that diet is as dumb as one the probibits you only from eating red gummibears.
The food and fitness business is full of dubious and downright wrong information and that leads to ridiculous, overpriced products like asparaguswater.

1. Kickstarter lies

Before Anita started her Kickstarter campaign she held a talk where she said she was being harassed by a organized group of 4chan members for months. She said these 4chan members subscribed to her channel so they would know when she released new videos so they could attack her. The type of comments she said she received were sexual insults, death threats & rape threats. She said sometimes she got together with a friend to read through the comments because it would get overwhelming. She says that she probably has the biggest block list on Youtube and anytime they leave any anti feminist, harassing, or threating comment they would be blocked. She said that she had gotten use to these kinds of comments. She said she monitored her Youtube comment section so the only comments that were allowed to be shown had to be approved by her.

She lunched her Kickstarter campaign and made a Youtube video for the campaign. She for the first time allowed comments on her video. she makes a post on her website entitled Harassment, Misogyny and Silencing on YouTube. She says this in the post.

"Here is a very small sample of the harassment I deal with for daring to criticize sexism in video games. Keep in mind that all this is in response to my Kickstarter project for a video series called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (which I have not even made yet). These are the types of silencing tactics often used against women on the internet who dare to speak up. But don’t worry it won’t stop me!"

"These messages and comments have included everything from the typical sandwich and kitchen “jokes” to threats of violence, death, sexual assault and rape."

http://feministfrequency.com/2012/06/07/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/

She says that all of these comments are because of her Kickstarter campaign because she dares to speak critically about video games. These statements completely contradict what she said before she started her Kickstarter campaign. Before her Kickstarter she said she was systemically being harassed by people on 4chan and that among the things they said to her were sexual insults, death threats & rape threats and sometimes it was so overwhelming she read them with a friend as a way to cope with it and she had gotten use to it by that point. So she leaves comments open on her youtube kickstarter video which is something she never did before and she was surprised by the negative comments but how can she be surprised by the same type of comments she was receiving long before she launched her Kickstarter. When she started her Kickstarter and left her comments open she knew exactly what the comments were going to be like because she been receiving them for months prior. So when she says during her Kickstarter that all of the negative comments were because of her Kickstarter campaign she's lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoDEA6yw24

2. Other Lies

She says that Grand Theft Auto and Saint Row encourage players to kill women by giving players money for killing random female NPCs.

"some games explicitly incentive and reward this kind of behavior by having murdered women drop bundles of cash for the player to collect and add to their own stash"

The truth is money is dropped by any NPC that is killed in the games and has nothing to do with gender.

She says that the female stripper NPCs from Hitman Absolution were put their because the developer wanted players to kill them. The game discourages players from killing innocent civilians by taking away points. The whole point of the game is to sneak by people and keep unnecessary killing to a minimum while moving toward killing your intended target not to kill random strippers and lose points for doing so. The path to the strippers is one of two paths that the player can take. The path to the strippers is the harder of the two paths to take. The other path that the player can take is easier and doesn't involve coming near the strippers at all.

She also says this in her Background Decoration video.

"their status as disposable objects is reinforced by the fact that in most games discarded bodies will simply vanish into thin air a short time after being killed"

She tries to tie disappearing bodies as something that only happens to female NPCs but it has nothing to do with gender its just something that happens in a lot of games irregardless of gender because of limited ram capacity and not having the game slow down because of bodies pilling up.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingFades

shes a life long gamer
at a Santa Monica College in California back in early 2010 Anita says that she's not a fan of video games and she had to learn a lot about them. she says that she would love to play video games but she doesn't what to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads. During and after her Kickstarter she says that shes been playing video games since she was 5 years old and shes a life long gamer. How can she be a lifelong gamer if she said pre Kickstarter that she doesn't like video games specifically because she thinks that all games are violent. If she's a lifelong gamer than what has she been playing all of this time and why does she thinks all video games are violent. She obviously not a lifelong gamer and only said that as a way to try and give herself more credibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJj_7SVAIS4

In her damsel video she said Zelda was never a playable character in a console game. Zelda was playable in the CDI games Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon & Zelda's Adventure. I am not saying these are good games but they are console games where Zelda was the star of her own adventure.

She says that gaming is all boys club and women have until recently been barred from playing games. This is untrue their has never been anything stopping girls from playing games. Most game genres are not gender excluding. Racing, fighting, beat em up, real time strategy, role playing, puzzle, point and click, action adventure, platformers, MMO, Simulation, rhythm action.

Women have been involved in the making of games for years. Theirs been female programmers, artist, composers, designer, CEO, etc. Women have also been involved in the journalism side of things as well. This false narrative that Anita's trying to push that games have somehow excluded women until recently is a lie that she tells to try to push her gender base agenda.

The other thing that she tries to push is the ideal that man are trying to keep women from playing or criticizing games. Both things are false but she keeps to that script so she can fight against the imagery boogie man that she created and so she can justify the existences of her video series.

Anita omitted the fact that she has connections to the developer of the game sword and sworcery but I am sure that has noting to do with the reason why she chose that game's character as a positive female even though it contradicts her previous videos.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/315zh3/possible_ethics_issue_with_anitas_latest_video/.

3. Poor Research

In dismals in distress she said that peach was added to Mario 2 to fill a per existing gender role that existed in the original game Doki Doki Panic except for the fact that her own footage clearly shows that two females were playable in Doki Doki Panic. If she did further research like actually playing the game than she would know that it wasn't just one girl in Doki Doki Panic. The core concept that Anita doesn't understand about games is the fact that graphics assist can be replaced with anything. In fan made mods the cast of Super Mario Bros 2 have been replaced by numerous things like Star Wars ships, Pokemon, Transformers, Spider-Man villains, etc.

http://www.romhacking.net/?page=hacks&game=749

https://youtu.be/t8bub0B1-wk?t=6m15s

In Women as Background Decoration Anita says this

"In order to understand how this works lets take a moment to examine how video game operate as playgrounds for player engagement. Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious but bear with me. game developers set up a series of rules and then within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do and what we can't do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibility within the gamespace. So in many of the titles we've been discussing the game makers have setup a series of possible scenarios involving vulnerable eroticized female characters. Players are than invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon. Because they were designed constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. Its a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."

Theirs two basic concepts that she doesn't understand. The first one is that games are interactive so players can do things that developers never intended players to be able to do. The second is the fact that games have bugs in them which also allows players to do things that the developers never intending for them to do.

For example in Halo 2 players can do button combos. Button combo is a sequence of buttons that, when pressed in order, results in the execution of an exploit. Typical button combos take advantage of unforeseen attributes of certain actions. Some actions, such as meleeing, can disrupt animations for firing and reloading weapons, performing melees, etc. By chaining these and other actions, players can perform special tricks, such as automatic Plasma Grenade sticks and instant close-range kills. However, many players disapprove of such "cheap" exploitations, and Bungie has declared these combos all as cheating and therefore banworthy

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Cheating

Another example is in early versions of arcade Mortal Kombat 2. Players figured out how to hit babies after performing Babalitys.

http://bbh.marpirc.net/mk2/

By Anita's logic midway endorses child abuse because players tested the bounders of the game and were able to interact with the objects (babies) in the game that were put their by the developer. So that clearly means that the developer supports any action the players can do in the game including hitting babies. Or it can just mean that games are interactive and filled with glitches and just because a player can do something in a game doesn't automatically mean that the developer endorsed it or even meant for player to be able to do it.

In her Bayonetta video she complains about Bayonetta clothes coming off when she summons demons. she doesn't acknowledge or knows that Bayonetta's hair is also her cloths so that's why her cloths disappears when she summons demons. She also makes the claim that Bayonetta is fighting demons when in fact Bayonetta is actually fighting angles. She also says that Bayonetta has a child except for the fact that Bayonetta doesn't have any children. She claims that Bayonetta is a "choose your own patriarchal adventure porno fantasy." Lets take a second to look at what the word Patriarchy means. Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. So how is Bayonetta a game in which players play as a strong women who is always in control of a situation and is more powerful than any man in the game enforcing ideals of Patriarchy. Bayonetta is not a choose your own adventure type game nor is it a porno.

She says this in a tweet

"Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers"

Bayontta was design by a women

http://platinumgames.com/2009/04/17/designing-bayonetta/

http://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Mari_Shimazaki

McIntosh said this on twatter about the Witcher.

"Geralt from Witcher 3 is emotionally deficient in the extreme. Never cries or laughs. Never expresses grief, fear, sadness or vulnerability."

Witchers are unable to express emotions on their faces because of the training that is involed to become a Witcher. Taken in as children, Witchers-to-be are subjected to intense alchemical processes, consumption of mutagenic compounds and relentless physical and magical training to make them dangerous and highly versatile against their vast array of opponents.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Witcher

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/

"In the beginning of “Women as Background Decoration: Part 2,” Sarkeesian references a scene from Dragon Age’s City Elf Origin story, in which a group of guards make disturbing sexual comments over the player character’s dead female companion. Sarkeesian implies that BioWare’s narrative is built on the “brutalization of women’s bodies,” using dead women “as an indicator of just how harsh, cruel, and unforgiving their game worlds are.”

"However, the female elf’s treatment is better understood as a thematic commentary on systematic misogynistic violence. Both women and elves are confined to strict socioeconomic roles within the origin story, as the brutal city government uses institutional force in order to keep women and elves oppressed. Essentially, the game explores the use of sexual violence as a form of violent oppression within a misogynistic institutional structure. Yet, Sarkeesian and McIntosh misread this moment – ignoring a critical look at misogynistic oppression within Dragon Age’s narrative."

"Sarkeesian has criticized the postmodern video game Hotline Miami for utilizing the “Damsel in Distress” trope. However, Feminist Frequency’s analysis completely erases the game’s subversion of the trope – as the narrative’s “damsel” seems to be held hostage by the player, and avenging her death produces no reward. Indeed, writers such as Maddy Myers have dissented from Sarkeesian and McIntosh’s analysis – praising Hotline Miami as a postmodern exploration of hypermasculinity which subverts the “damsel” trope."

http://gamemoir.com/lgbt-gender/frequency-anita-sarkeesians-strengths-weaknesses/

4. Things taking out of context

She shows footage of Fallout New Vegas where a womens body is being dragged around with psychic powers and says that games often permits women to be knockout, pickup, carried and thrown around. All of these things can be done to male NPCs as well. She also says that assault, mutilating & murder can be done to women in games but all of those same things can be done to male NPCs as well. She tries to use these things as examples of sexism towards women but its not sexism if the same thing can be done to male NPCs.

She claims that the objectification of female NPCs is terrible.

"Unlike other NPCs that exist for purposes outside of their sexuality, Non-Playable Sex Objects have little to no individual personality or identity to speak of. since these women are just objects there's no need or reason for players to have any emotional engagement with them. meaningful relations or interactions are not even possible. Their programming simply does not allow for it."

She tries to say this is unique to female NPCs. The lack of deep personalities, non emotional engagement or meaningful relations is true of all Pedestrian NPCs male or female.

"when assaulted by the player non playable sex objects might scream. but regardless of their canned automated reaction they are will designed to be expendable to be used and then tossed out."

Same thing is true for male NPCs as well.

In background decoration she talks about female character being objectified while showing footage of the main protagonist from Watch Dogs in the process of shutting down a human trafficking ring.

In her background decoration video she said this.

"In the realm of interactive media I use the term "instrumentailty" to refer to the practice of using virtual women as tools or props for the players own purposes. Courtesans in the Assassins Creed series, for instance, are available to be "rented" and used to help you "blend in" to the environment. Once acquired, they can be ordered to flirt with guards to distract them. Allowing the protagonist to slip by undetected. "

The courtesans were one of the four factions allied to the Assassin Order, with the other three being the thieves, mercenaries and Romanies. They usually aided the Order by collecting information from clients, or by acting as distractions and allowing allies to slip into restricted areas.

The player can also hire male thieves & mercenaries to aid them with blending into a environments and killing. So is using man as Tools bad as well or is it only bad when it happens to women in Assassin Creed.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Courtesans

Anita and mcintosh purposely says controversial things on tweeter to provoke a negative reaction from people so they can use the response to prove Anita's continued harassment. mcintosh even admits to purposely provoking gamers with his comments.

https://youtu.be/Xi5qQ3GIbD0?t=7m50s

Here's an example of Anita provoking a reaction from people and using the response as a example of her continued harassment to coincide with a Kickstarter update.

You only have to watch the first 3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLD8gHkaqLc&index=21&list=PLbGeY5L25KBr_OtPsRJWfKoNslm2UZA6a

Lets take a look at some of these comments.

"A few months ago I started posting deliberately provocative tweets whenever I'd see the angry gamer mod launch a harassment raid on someone"

"I'd only post things I basically agreed with, but I did it in an overtly antagonizing way designed to enrage these specific hateful gamers"

"The goal was to see if I could draw some of their fire & distract them a bit from their usual targets. It worked like a charm. It still is"

"Its shockingly easy to drive these bozos into frothing fits of rage. Simply tweet critically about their beloved Ico, MGS or Bayonetta"

ANITA

"not a coincidence it's always men and boys committing mass shootings. the pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture"

"manhood, not guns or mental illness should be central in newtown shooting must read 2012 article by @ jacksontkatz huffingtonpost.com"

"mass shootings are one of tragic consequence of a culture that perpetuates toxic ideas of masculinity. this is how patriarchy can harm men too"

"there's no such thing as sexism against men. that's because sexism is prejudice + power. men are the dominant gender with power in society"

"games press: allowing unmoderated comments contributes to the culture of sexism and harassment. you can't be neutral on a moving train"

"Absolutely brilliant article by @janelarejones discussing the amazing levels of sexism in BBC #sherlock's irene adler"

"I finally watched the 1st season of Mad Men & i was HORRIFIED, it is not interesting or subversive to watch uncontested sexism & racism"

"I'll be discussing the reasons Bayonetta is so pernicious in my Fighting Fuck Toy video. Bayonetta is a quintessential example of the trope"

"Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers"

"Disappointed to see most major Bayonetta 2 reviews completely ignore or even praise its shameless sexism and flagrant use of the male gaze"

"I have to say, I really don't like going into comic book stores because everywhere i turn i face misogyny and sexism"

"the US bombed them back to traditional values. feminism does not exist in Japan. while I don't like judging an entire culture, that does not excuse them"

"I've played a ton of awful sexist video games but God of War 3 really is one of the most brazenly misogynist titles ever produced"

"GTA5 is in the news this week because of its horrendous violence against women. Watch our episode on the issue here:"

"A favorite harassment tactic of online abusers is to send me gameplay footage or still images of the degradation of women in video games"

"Rockstar: when gameplay from your product is regularly used to harass women it might be a sign you're contributing to a hostile environment"

"time after new GTA launch before fans started harassing me with gameplay of the use & murder of prostitutes? 86 mins"

Shows a picture of her holden Metroid Other M and comments
"About to replay this monstrosity. The things I do for you people...#cringe

"Anime is the most disgusting, sexist, and misogynistic form of media to ever come out of Japen. Anime defiles women and caters to perverts and losers. those cartoons are corrupting teenagers and promoting rape culture.

"Dying Light has a damsel in distress storyline. Dear game developers, its 2015 aren't you embarrassed by this yet?"

"The Witcher 3 does to Ciri what Arkham City did to Catwoman Thugs yell "bitch" and "whore" and sexually harass both women as you play them"

"Welp, I guess we could just use The Witcher 3 to illustrate the rest of our #tropevswomen series because it includes all the sexist tropes"

"Also the "it's realistic for enemies to sexually harass female characters” excuse is nonsense in fantasy games filled with ghouls & wraiths"

"Dear gaming industry: If you want to appeal to women maybe consider not having your game yell "bitch" and "whore" at us while we're playing"

"Enemies in Witcher 3 yall gendered insults at the playable female character but insults thrown at the make lead are decidedly not gendered"

"Enemies call Geralt "freak" & "mutant" due to fictional prejudice against magic. When they call Ciri "cunt" it's rooted in real life sexism"

"Games like The Witcher 3 use sexism & sexual violence for "gritty world-building, presenting it as regrettable but natural and inevitable"

"In fact, Witcher 3 is a particularly egregious example of this problem. The game repeatedly uses brutal sexual violence as window dressing."

"This level of extreme violence shouldn't be considered normal. Its not an excuse to say it's expected because DOOM. Thats the problem #BE3"

"Its really troubling (and depressing) that the #BE3 audience is enthusiastically cheering for bodies being ripped apart"

"Only a few minutes into the Bethesda press conference and it's wall to wall glorification of grotesque violence. I can barely watch #BE3"

"If the games industry truly wants to mature it's going to have to focus much more on creative and humanizing interactions #E32015"

"The #Fallout4 crafting system is cool imagine how much cooler it could be if it wasn't SO focused on building stuff to kill other stuff"

A bit sad that #Dishonored2 didn't make the leap to an exclusively female lead but really pleased they're using Emily in marketing #BE3

"Saints Row is not a satire of sexism, it's sexist satire. Same goes for the Grand Theft Auto franchise"

"Like the myth of reverse racism, reverse sexism only exists if you happen to have a time machine"

"Portraying women of color as exotic, hypersexual and animalistic like the succbi in the Witcher 3 is part of a very long racist tradition"

"It makes me profoundly sad that mainstream pop culture now interprets feminism to mean "women can drive fast and stoically kill people too!"

MCINTOSH

"San Francisco is full of repugnant white dudes who believe capitalism and their personal technology idea will save the poor brown people"

"probably not super productive to tell random techie dudes that their business model is both evil and racist. but damn it they had it coming"

"dear silicon valley tech startups: there is no such thing as altruistic capitalism. you can't get rich while "helping" impoverished people."

"They are 100% sincere in their belief that their form of "altruistic techie capitailsm" is god's gift to the world"

"capitalism as an economic system and the continuous growth it requires is impossible to sustain. that's not ideology. that's math #ows"

"the games industry has a problem. Tens of thousands of people construct their identity around its products than act like hateful sociopaths"

"#JeNeSuisPasCharlie because I don't use my free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society like Charlie Habdo"

"Extremist vigilante shooters kill 3 in Los Vegas. meanwhile game developers at #E3 continue to glorify extreme vigilante violence"

"Gaming could be a perfect medium to help re-learn values of empathy and compassion but sadly it's most often used to permote the opposite"

"I'm not ashamed of being a man. Quite the contrary, I work to change toxic cultural ideas of what "being a man" means"

"so many toxic assumptions about violent masculinity here. You could write a thesis just about this game setting menu"

"Things that are not oppression:3) Pointing out extremely toxic sexism in hobbyist communities. 4) Criticism of video games"

"It's not a few bad apples. Gamer culture itself is absolutely steeped in extremely toxic ideals about masculinity"

"Each day a bunch of helpful gamer dudes helpfully tweet at me to help prove gamer culture is deeply sexist and toxic"

"Dear clueless gamers replying to me: The point of Male protagonist Bingo is not to win, the point is to illustrate limiting toxic patterns"

"Many promote a culture of aggressive toxic masculinity. So you just helped answer your own question there buddy"

"I’ve seen some mention the abundant sexism in The Witcher 3 but I’ve yet to see any real discussion of its toxic depiction of masculinity."

"Geralt of Rivia is the perfect embodiment of hegemonic masculinity. #TheWitcher3"

"@Scottcoeditor Rage and anger are two of the only emotions men are really allowed to express in patriarchy (which is super unhealthy)."

"Anger and rage are the only real emotional expressions male game protagonists are allowed. Needless to say that's a toxic message for men."

"Mass media narratives, especially games, are often constructed in ways that justify and exonerate men for their angry and violent outbursts."

"Reminder that both Bayonetta games include boss attack animations by Rodin which strongly imply Bayonetta has just been raped."

"If anyone needed further proof that Bayonetta is not any kind of feminist icon. RT @SJWIlluminati: hahahahahahahaha "

"We've fallen so far in critical discourse that I now regularly have to start debates with “You do know Bayonetta isn't a real person right?"

"@TheQuinnspiracy It also has a lot to do with control. They can control Bayonetta’s actions but can’t control human women, so they lash out."

"Don’t think Bayonetta is designed & marketed specifically for horny straight dudes? Nintendo partnered with Playboy. "

"Lollipop Chainsaw, BloodRayne, Dead or Alive and Bayonetta are ALL designed in the same way, as hyper-sexualized fantasies for straight men."

"Precisely. RT @mercurypixel: @radicalbytes Welp, they talk about Bayonetta like she's a freaking real human being, so... don't expect much."

"Bayonetta was created by Hideki Kamiya as his “ideal woman”. He also said "all women outside should dress like her" for his viewing pleasure"

"Bayonetta was created by Kamiya as his "ideal woman" RT @Brostalgia In fact Mari was told by her male boss to male a sexy fighting character"

"Amazed to see sexist gamer dudes now adopting feminist terminology to defend jiggle physics. We can thank Bayonetta 2 reviews for that one."

"Media literacy 101: Bayonetta’s creators make their fictional character do poses for the game camera specifically for the player’s benefit."

"No it’s really not. Bayonetta’s game camera is the most transparent use of the male gaze in video games I’ve ever seen."

"Actual comment. Doesn't understand fiction is constructed. "Stop sluts-haming Bayonetta. She fights and does sexy poses for her own benefit”

"I shouldn’t have to point this out but there is no actual sex in Bayonetta or Tomb Raider etc. Objection to the male gaze is not anti-sex."

"@a_man_in_black Bayonetta’s body/sexuality is specifically presented and displayed as a reward for successful actions taken by the player."

"@a_man_in_black Might account for the "i/her" dissonance if straight male players both self-project into & are sexually aroused by Bayonetta"

"@a_man_in_black Partly has to do with gender. Bayonetta is designed for straight male players but we’re not meant to truly identify with her"

"The special “naked” attacks essentially turn Bayonetta into a hypersexualized puppet designed to thrill the puppeteer."

"For male gaze in Bayonetta 2, pay attention to things outside of the character’s control like the cutscene camera & player directed attacks."

"Looks like most Bayonetta 2 reviews fail to mention the hyper-sexualized male gaze of the cutscene camera and player directed strip attacks."

"When Bayonetta 2 reviews come out we’ll very quickly see who actually cares about issues of sexual objectification & exploitation in gaming."

"Endlessy amused at some gamers complete inability to do even the most basic textual analyses of their favorite games. # MaleProtagonistBingo"

"For those who keep bringing up Sonic as a counterexample for Male Protagonist Bingo. I'll just leave this right here"

"The core value of patriarchal masculinity is control. It's not a coincidence that control is central to many video game mechanics & stories"

"Fascination that you somehow don't think there're any messages in Smash Bros. Start with violence solves conflicts"

"Amused to see so many hateful #gobbledygate user list aspiring game developer in their bio. Yeah good luck with that. You're gonna need it"

8:18 – "Germany is very financially responsible".

The clip makes a few good points, twists others and omits some central issues. But I want to comment on the quote above most of all, because it forms the basis for all kinds of arguments and recommendations.

The claim that Germany is financially responsible stems from what has been paraded around domestically as the "schwarze Null" (black zero), meaning a balanced budget. Given how focused most economic debates are around the national debt or the current budget deficit, it shouldn't come as a surprise that not running a deficit evokes positive responses in the public. If there has ever been an easy sell, politically, it's this.

However, it's not that simple.

For instance, the sectoral balance rule dictates, by pure accounting identity, that the sum of public balance, private balance and external balance is 0 at all times. In case of Germany, this means that the balanced public budget (no surplus, just a fat zero) requires a current account surplus of the same size as private savings – or an accumulation of private debt. For someone to run a surplus, someone else has to run a deficit. In this case, foreign economies have to run a deficit vis-á-vis Germany, so that neither the German government nor the German private sector have to run a deficit.

The composition of each sector is another topic entirely, but the point remains: no surplus in Germany without a deficit in the periphery. If everyone is to be like Germany, Klingons have to run the respective deficit.

My question: is it financially responsible to depend on other economies' deficits to keep your own house in order? Is it responsible to engage in this kind of behaviour after having locked yourself into a monetary union with less competitive economies who have no way of defending themselves through currency devaluation?

Second point: capital accounts and current accounts are two sides of the same coin. If Germany runs a current account surplus of X%, it also runs a capital account deficit of X%. Doesn't explain anything, but it's the same for the countries at the other side of these trade imbalances. Spain's current account deficit with Germany meant a capital inflow of the same size.

Let's look at EuroStat's dataset for current accounts. Germany had run a minor current account deficit during the late '90s and a small surplus up to 2003. From then on, it went up, up, up. Given the size of Germany's economy within Europe, that jump from 2% to 7.5% is enormous. Pre-GFC, the majority of this surplus went to... yap, PIIGS. Their deficits multiplied.

Subsequently, capital of equals size flowed into these countries, looking for investments. No nation, none, can absorb this amount of capital without it resulting in a massive misallocation, be it stock bubbles, housing bubbles, highways to nowhere or lavish consumption. Michael Pettis wrote a magnificent account (Syriza and the French indemnity of 1871-73) of this and explains how Germany handled a similar inflow of capital after the Franco-Prussian war: it crashed their economy.

As Pettis correctly points out, the question of causality remains. Was the capital flow a pull or a push?

The dataset linked above says it all happened at just about the same time, in all countries. It also happened at the same time as Germany's parliament signed of on "Agenda 2010", which is the cause of massive wage suppression in Germany. Germany intentionally lowered its unit labour costs and undercut the agreed upon inflation target (2%). German employees and retirees were forced to live below their means, so the export sector could gain competitiveness against all the other nations, including those in the same currency union. Beggar-thy-neighbour on steroids.

Greece overshot the inflation target. They lived beyond their means. But due to their size, it's economically negligable. France stayed on point the entire time, has higher productivity than Germany and still gets defamed as the lame duck of Europe. Yet Germany, after more than a decade of financial warfare against its fellow members of the EU/EZ, is hailed as the beacon of financial responsibility.

Mercantilism always comes at the cost of others. And the EU is living proof.

Thanks for your "very scientific" definition (just like GenjiKilpatrick's "evidence" for global warming, saying "OMG, Global Warming is real because it was 70 degrees in Georgia!")

No, unlike you, I don't confuse partisanship with data... Nor do I look for arbitrary reasons to discount a person's entire argument because the rules of epistemology suddenly no longer apply. On the contrary, I choose to instead examine what the data actually shows before arriving at my own changing thoughts on the matter.

But I guess, for you, the data isn't as important as the source, so long as your pre-cooked distortions of reality aren't disrupted by something as pesky and difficult to conform to one's beliefs as the FACTS... (remember those?)

But, yes, you are absolutely right about fucking yourselves. Perhaps you should spend less time online and save some electricity. (Or maybe it's too much for you to actually Walk The Talk instead of just bloviating online.)

I went to a gas station recently. Lots of people were pumping gas... And none of them seemed to care very much about your ideas of oil company fellatio. They also didn't seem concerned at all about crackpot climate change "theories"... (Go figure.) You should get out there and yell at them for ruining the planet, ChaosEngine. I was also at an airport recently, too. There were lots of planes burning fuel. You're not making a single dent on oil consumption with your tirades... Perhaps you should try another strategy and see if anyone cares.

(Haha.. Of all the fictional "crises" you could choose to be an alarmist about, you've chosen one on which you have zero impact! But, hey, for all I know, you're just addicted to the adrenaline rush of faux outrage. Lucky for you, I'm here to feed it...

Interestingly with my global journal access through academia, not anywhere is the article I linked shown as peer reviewed media accessible through the common university publications...must just be a nature journal thing to want to rort people for money no matter what their affiliation.

At first glance, I read this article to mean that the area is a sink in so far as it contains a large quantity of methane, and its 'consumption' or 'uptake' rates are shown in negative values...indicating a release of the gas.

In checking peer reviewed articles through my academic channels, I come across many that are saying pretty much the same deal, heres a tl;dr from just one of them;

"Permafrost covers 20% of the earth's land surface.
One third to one half of permafrost, a rich source of methane, is now within 1.0° C to 1.5° C of thawing.
At predicted rates of thaw, by 2100 permafrost will boost methane released into the atmosphere 20% to 40% beyond what would be produced by all other natural and man-made sources.
Methane in the atmosphere has 25 times the heating power of carbon dioxide.
As a result, the earth's mean annual temperature could rise by an additional 0.32° C, further upsetting weather patterns and sea level."

Source: Methane: A MENACE SURFACES. By: Anthony, Katey Walter, Scientific American, 00368733, Dec2009, Vol. 301, Issue 6

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

OK
#1. Your study quote which said no mechanism had been discovered.
#2. "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear."...LOCATION UNCLEAR MEANS NOT FOUND.
#3...this does not make sense, "this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks" is self contradictory, since many terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks are NOT moderate...depending on the definition of "moderate". If less than 10 deg C is moderate, then they're right.
#4. You can tell them 98%+ of scientists in the field of climatology say side effects of industry/technology will cause "X" at a minimum in 100 years, and it has already caused "Y" (warming, weather changes, ocean acidification, environmental pollution, rising cancer rates, water shortages, other indisputable factors), send him back with proof of those effects, and I think same result..."no thanks".

I misunderstood I guess. If you did that, he would just be in a rubber room for claiming to be a time traveler, not seen as a visionary. ;-) If he could offer proof of the time travel, the state of the planet, and the environmental trends showing every issue is seemingly getting worse leading to cluster f*ck, it would not be a hard sell in the least, IMO. At least not to people with an IQ over 90. You don't have to abandon all those things (coal, yes), you would just have to design them better. Electric cars were often the norm before Ford in towns. Planes might be electric dirigibles, and satellites might be put in orbit by rail guns.
If you don't think 1/3 of the planet's population (a reasonable guess if water shortages continue the current trend) being migrant doesn't warrant 'panic' (which I never suggested, I will say it warrants concern even by those in the '1st' world) then I don't know what to tell you.
Citations:
#1. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years (I was off by 5 years) at current acidification rates.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/climate-change-threatens-crucial-marine-algae/
"By 2040, most of the Arctic Ocean will be too acidic for shell- forming species including most plankton. Significant areas of the Antarctic Ocean will be similarly affected, oceanographer Carol Turley from Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK previously told IPS."

#2. by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Unless we change our ways, two-thirds of the world’s population will face water scarcity by 2025"

#3. Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Rapid melting will reduce the Tibetan glaciers by 50 percent every decade, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences
More than two-thirds of Chinese cities face water shortages"

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.