No...THAT'S the point you missunderstand....

Because someone doesn't automatically adopt your position about one specific statement of hers does not mean they say "Well, clearly Sark CAN'T be a con-artist.. otherwise we would all know. And no one would give her the time of day"
You're operating on the "you're either 100% with me, or 100% against me" mindset, which is hilarious since I'm about 98% with you about her.


You might understand that if you read my post where I repeat over and over that I'm not a fan of hers and think she's a terrible speaker/spokesperson. Instead you have taken the position that, because you didn't convince me of one point, I disagree with you on all other points and therefore I'm a vocal supporter of hers....um.....no....that's not how it works....duh.

It means you didn't prove your singular specific point.

Understand?

Just like I said to you here long ago...
newtboy says...

I will say I do recall her being caught faking/making misleading videos about game footage, so I do think she is at least probably a fraud.
I also know she's terrible about constantly being insulting, even to those she's courting. Not good.
I don't want you to keep thinking I'm her supporter, I just need evidence I feel is trustworthy if I'm to make a judgment about the anti-porn star thing...it's just weird and anti-feminist.


Period.

I thought your main (secondary) point was that she's a well known anti-sex worker/porn star that insults them with labels like 'prostituted women' and....well...and nothing, no other labels have been offered....so I guess she's NOT a well known anti-sex worker then? What IS your position? It's confusing.

I never have asserted any such thing about her, I only asked you to provide evidence of YOUR claims about her...I made none, so I have none to back up.
Again, I never asserted she was or wasn't anything, I did assert that your contention that she had no reason to disable comments or cancel one event except to silence critics, she had a very good reason besides that, and she didn't silence anyone because she held other events and (according to you) left open other venues for people to discuss her.
That's why your argument didn't hold water...and still doesn't, but you seem to have dropped that line and moved on to simply 'why do you love her' kind of strawman.

I'm defending nothing but truth in discussion, and your primary assertion ran contrary to that, and your secondary one needs confirmation one way or another.
I enable no one in that, but you might enable her supporters by putting forth easily dismissed reasons for disliking her. If you had good reasons you had shown me, I would dislike her (actually, I should say dislike her more, I've said time and time again I don't like her, I'm not a fan, she's a terrible spokesperson for anything)
So you can continue to ignore what I say and say I'm supporting and enabling a con artist if you wish, it won't make it true and only means you don't understand what I've said.

Well, I'll try to explain then.
I have a tendency to not take the word of someone that obviously has a pre-conceived opinion. The 'evidence' you provided was not ample...the written parts were nothing but commentary (and one was just commentary about Westborough Church) The videos were preceded by the explanation by the creator that they were simply nothing but re-edited videos made to say what he wanted, not reality. There's absolutely no reason to give such videos a look at all, so after the first one I didn't.
I refuse to acknowledge them because I found them lacking in actual EVIDENCE and full of nothing but comment and snark, and in the case of the videos, just admitted lies. I asked for evidence of her actions, not evidence that other people dislike her.
I tried watching that video last week, didn't like it, didn't finish it.
As I said repeatedly, I'm open to EVIDENCE, just not pure propaganda presented as evidence. That's all you've linked so far, propaganda. I have not seen a whit of EVIDENCE about her actions/statements involving sex workers from you yet.
If you care to provide some real evidence of her actions, not someone bitching about her, not someone taking 2 words she said and making a 10 minute video about what THEY say she meant. How about a single interview where SHE said something derogatory about sex workers. How about a single article where she's QUOTED saying something derogatory about sex workers...and as I've said I don't think the phrase "prostituted women" cuts it, that can be 100% non-derogatory if said in a non-derogatory way...so provide EVIDENCE, or give up trying to make me have an opinion about her...I really don't care a bit about her, and don't think she's a worthy spokesperson for anything...isn't that good enough for you? Does every thing she does have to be seen by everyone in a bad light? I don't see why.

Lazy bastard, yes, but not too lazy to read these...they were on topic at least....mostly.

Ok, the first one said what I said, that she used the term technically. It's maybe the listeners who don't understand that a 'prostituted woman' may be prostituting herself, so it's not pejorative or denying women having 'agency of their own'.
The second was the same thing, commentary about her saying the words 'prostituted women'.
The third was about the Westburrough Baptist Church?!?! WTF? Yes, it mentions "radical feminists" and derides their puritanical prudeness, but it never mentions Sarkeesian, and never quotes these "radical feminists" to support their claim that they really are puritanical.
I bothered to read all 3, and nothing there was in dispute, she did say sex workers are "prostituted women" (and disgustingly ignored the prostituted men, that uber bitch, burn her!). EDIT: because some took it as " agency-denying code phrase used by sex-worker-eliminationist radical feminists" does not mean it was meant that way, perhaps it was, but I'm not yet convinced. A video of her saying it with disgust on her face and in her voice would convince me....if that matters to you. She's off my radar.
I said originally that I think the term applies, and is only pejorative if the listener thinks selling sex is bad. That's why I can't understand porn stars being upset by it, but could understand them being upset by being called 'dirty whores on film' or something like that.
I still can't say if she meant it in a negative way, only that it's clear that she likely said the words about sex workers, and some took it negatively.

EDIT: I never said she was a good speaker, which is why I'm not a fan. She had a point to make originally, but her style and the over reaction to it overshadowed her cause. That makes her a terrible spokesperson for anything....in case you thought I support her.

For that we have NDT. Dawkins is for those times when an abrasive asshole is what's called for, and there are all too many of those times. He's not really a good 'spokesperson', but he's a great slobbering bulldog.

Dawkins is the worst spokesperson for pro-science/rational thought I've seen in my life. Guy is an offensive self-righteous asshole, and the educated/scientific community can do far better in finding someone to represent the benefits of education and/or anti-zealotry.

I couldn't even bear to watch the video to listen for the audio, but I think it's likely you are correct. This is yet another context-less internet video which someone has placed in an inflammatory context. Obviously they're not being cited for giving away food. That's not illegal. Everyone's flailing about "LET THEM FEED THE HOMELESS" (including the post title) but if there's a food safety violation going on here, well, it's the job of the police to make sure they don't get a bunch of people sick, especially some homeless folk who probably don't have a good way to get to the ER if they get really bad food poisoning.

A responsible news crew (or anyone interested in providing context) would have followed up with a word from the guys being cited, and with a police spokesperson to get the real story from both sides.

With all of that said, the cynic in me is still here. He says "it can't be that hard to give safe (apparently catered) food away on the street for free, with or without a permit".

Well, since you support murdering children, you will feel right at home.

It's not just airtime given to Israeli officials, it's the manner in which these interviews are conducted. Channel 4's Jon Snow didn't have any representative for the Palestinian point of view either, just Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman. But he confronted him on the bullshit he was spewing, he put the atrocities right in his face.

US media, on the other hand, gives them free reign to promote their own point of view without any challenge. What about the intentional attacks on hospitals, schools and mosques? What about the bombings of UNWRA schools? What about the bombing run in Khan Younis that reportedly killed 19 children from the Abu Jami’ family? What about the attacks on Al Jazeera?

Plenty of material to challenge the Israelis on, yet they decide to be a one-sided mouthpiece instead.

Your video, Jon Snow confronts Israeli Spokesperson on killing of kids, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You seem to equate "envy-fiends" with "liberals" here. I suppose that it's an understandable conflation tho, seeing as how you seem to consider yourself to be a "liberal" and thus (possibly) know yourself an envy-fiend, and can therefore link the two as being evidently interchangeable.

Perhaps, as a "spokesperson" for "liberals," then, you'd like to clarify for me what it is that the envy-fiends "really" say?

And I'm curious, too, as to whether anyone (other than me) actually care what you (as a "liberal" spokesperson) think (aside from those who have their fun at your expense).

Just like Mr. Rubin would likely remain in the 1% in any system, whether the state is run by "liberals" or by "conservatives," so would the envy-fiends remain so, either way. (BTW, I'm not calling you an envy-fiend, but you made the link for whatever -- Freudian-or-other -- reasons that seem to be quite personal to you.)

Not at all. Just noting the corporate spokesperson is talking to corporate shills.

I love this. It's a much better move than a spokesperson for the person saying it, or an official statement from them. This is much more honest and thoughtful and as he's only 19, pretty damn brave. Fantastic role model. *promote

But hey, if crack needs a spokesperson, we know who to call now !

Very good speech from Hyppönen, once again. It's funny that thru the years, his english pronunciation hasn't improved a lot.. For those that don't know, he's F-Secure spokesperson (and i guess innovator too, he's been there from the start, too bad their products are crap but with out them we would have no security at all..) They made some important inventions in the mid-90s.Some of them CIA fought with tooth and nails like 128bit encryptions claiming it's a security risk if USA can not intercept every signal they get (yes, this problem is OLD...) but F-Secure and other companies, ISPs, everyone were united in this issue and those security measures are now a commonplace...