Your video, Fox Guest So Vile & Sexist Even Hannity Cringes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Gah... makes me ill thinking of the money and where it from.

Just how vile these people really are.

@ChaosEngine
so spurr makes a mysoginistic assholery game,(which we agree) and to defend the response he receives.you point out that there was/is immense hatred for sarkesian which could translate to real world violence.

am i correct so far?

so we have sarkesian who has a large population that hate her guts.have posted the most vile threats towards her in the form of death threats and i can only imagine other very imaginative physical threats.basically a band of the most repugnant,online thugs and bullies.(i agree with you this is repulsive and disgusting).

am i still on the right page?

ok ok.lets assume your position is correct and lets also assume that sarkesian feels a real threat from this online harassment.

how does this group of vile and despicable people who hate sarkesian connect with a face-punching game? how does this game (distasteful as it is) translate to real physical harm? are you suggesting that this face-punching game somehow would CAUSE physical harm?

if so,please explain how that could be.

furthermore,you gloss over the jack thompson game (also created by spurr) as somehow being irrelevant.yet thompson does not have a security force to attend to his needs,and thompson was making the very same spurious and unsubstantiated claims that sarkesian was making.thompson was actually taking it a step further by trying to bring legislation proving the video games promoted violence.

same argument.
same reasoning and the same impetus for creating a face-punching game.

so why was it a moral imperative to expose spurr as a mysoginist in regards to sarkesian but not a misandrist in regards to thompson?

to take a stand on one and not the other is morally inconsistent.

but ok...not a big deal in the long run right?spurr didnt pay too much of a price for his poor taste,he was working poor to begin with and of little consequence.

and as i have been lectured over and over the past few days:choices/words have consequences.a position i totally agree with,just wish there was a tad more consistency in its execution.

so ok.spurr got what he deserved for putting this distatsteful,or in your words "mysoginistic assholery" of a game out there in the first place.suck it up buttercup..you got what you deserved.

ok fine.

but again,you either willingly or unwittingly ignore that the only person who is facing charges is greg elliot NOT spurr.

you would think that the man who created the actual game would be the focus of the indictment,but no..that goes to greg elliot.

who,by YOUR own standards,was a victim to a massive online group of hateful bullies who targeted him for disagreeing with the political position of guthrie,a well known toronto feminist.guthrie filed charges against guthrie for harassment.while at the very same time her followers had uncovered elliots private contacts and began a smear campaign against him,accosting and berating his family and friends. costing him job,80k in legal defense and is STILL awaiting a verdict after 3 years.

the mans life is in ruins.

and here is a little caveat that you may find interesting.in canada you do not have to prove actual harassment.you just have to "feel" harassed.

so this guthrie woman,along with her minions are abusing a court system to make a political point and using elliot to set a precedent that should disturb us all.

if you cannot see how easily this can be (and IS being) abused to control opinion and silent dissent.i dont know what to tell ya mate.

how many examples do we need where the accuser did so out of pure malice and/or revenge only to pay zero consequences for that abuse?

i implore you to read the link i provided.karen breaks it down quite succinctly.

We're not talking about a random "beat up this picture" game, or at least, that's not the impression I got (if it IS user-generated, then I retract my statements re Spurr). We're talking about a game specifically about beating up Sarkeesian.

First, it's the old comedy motto... "punch up, not down". Sarkeesian has received multiple, unbelievably vile threats against her. More to the point, those threats are credible. She's not a famous celebrity with an army of bodyguards to protect her. There's a very real chance that someone could just assault her on the street, far more so than Bieber.

Second, the people that want to punch Bieber are doing so because he's annoying. There's really very little malice behind it in almost all cases.

You can't reasonably argue that's the same for Sarkeesian. There is a genuine and widely documented movement of people on the web who have expressed serious hatred of her.

Let me put it this way, if I compared a "Punch Bieber" and a "Shoot Bin Laden" in the head game, which would you say has more genuine ill intent behind it?

When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far.

OTOH, if someone seriously assaulted Sarkeesian, there is a sizeable group of people who be delighted by that.

We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We must take what we know of the context surrounding something to decide whether we like it or not.

A game about punching Bill Cosby in the face? We can reasonably assume it's motivated by sexual assault allegations.
Now take the same game, and instead of Bill Cosby, you can choose any black celebrity. Again, you can make a reasonable assumption, except this time we could say it's racially motivated.

Possibly I'm misinterpreting his intentions, but if so, he's not really attempting to correct the public perception of them.

Actually, having sex with children isn't what is harmful to children (Unless done in a physical manner that causes bodily destruction.) Oh shit, call the PC patrol, Lawdeedaw said pedophiles aren't monsters or hurt children!

Or wait, did I? By your assumptions that I assume you would assume I would be saying those things. But only a fuck-tard would. And hence why PC attacks are for fucking tards.

In history sex with kids was fine. In Rome it was an honor and often the child had power over the adult. Even in America it was fine when the average age of living was dying young. In Mexico 13 is the legal age, but younger is often accepted. Even by older men. This is still true in many places.

HOWEVER, pedophiles in America deserve to have their dicks cut off! Their clits burned away! Etc. Why? What makes pedophiles so vile here is the fact that they do it when society condemns it so much. Because of this children's lives are utterly destroyed. It is like sibling sex and how that is condemned--but to a much greater level. Under no circumstances in abusing children in this manner okay, or excusable. Even in the case of mental retardation.

So yeah...

@newtboy
still missing my main point.

which may be my fault,i tend to ramble.

i can agree that:
choices have consequences.
i can agree that an employer had a right to fire according to its own dictates and standards.
i can actually agree with much of what you are saying,but it is not my point.

i am simply pointing out the larger and greater societal implications of how social media,youtube,instagram,tumblr etc etc are being used as bully pulpits by those who feel morally superior to admonish,chastise and ridicule other people into submission.sometimes rightly so,other times not.

there is already a growing number of people who have been directly affected by this new paradigm,and what i find disturbing is that so few are even bothered by this new development.

people have lost jobs over facebook posts!
for posting an opinion for fuck sakes!

and nobody seems to have a problem with this?
this is perfectly acceptable in a supposed "free" society?

lets use a totally hyperbolic example,but the parameters are the same:
during the salem witch trials it was later found to be common practice that one farmer would accuse his competition of witchcraft.

was this neighbor actually practicing witchcraft?
probably not,but what an effective way to rid yourself of competition.

we can use an even more recent example of afghanistan,where farmers were turning in their rivals for cash.they get rid of competition and their neighbor is whisked off to gitmo.

do you see what i am saying?

the larger implications are vast and easily abused.
and this is most certainly a PC police issue,because it is actually punishing offensive speech,opinions and positions.

west baptist church are a repulsive and offensive group of religious thugs,but they have a right to speak and express their vile opinions.

and i will defend their right to be offensive and vulgar,while totally disagreeing with their position.

this is social control by proxy.
don't say anything offensive,or there shall be consequences i.e:job loss
dont say anything controversial or there will be consequences,or post anything racy or contrary to social norms.

in fact,because more and more people are paying the price for saying/posting a controversial view or offensive opinion,just be quiet.

sit down.
shut up.
and obey.

or the PC police will band together to expose your offensive,controversial and subversive opinions and destroy your life.

so you just sit there and think your thoughts,but don't you dare voice them,or the morality police will expose you for the subversive you are.

this tactic is already reaching orwellian levels.
and nobody seems to be bothered.
nobody seems to be giving this the scrutiny and examination it deserves.there is a real danger here that many of my fellow citizens seems to be either unaware,or just dont care the larger implications and that is disturbing to me.

because some of the examples are just like THIS turdnugget.
a reprehensible,vulgar and ignorant example of a human being.so it is easy to feel good about him getting a "comeupance".

because we hate him and what he represents.so it is easy to ignore the larger picture and the implications of social warriors taking things too far.which i could literally type all day laying out scenarios where this form of PC police/social warriors could easily be abused (and already HAS in some instances).

and that should have us all standing up and taking notice,because it is those very implications and the relative silence that is disturbing me the most.

so yeah,this turdnugget is an easy target and easily dismissed as getting what he deserved,but what happens when it is YOUR behavior being villified? something you were doing ,maybe in the privacy of your own home or out with friends that made its way to youtube,and someone found offensive.what if you were taken out of context? or the video was edited?

how would you defend yourself?
better yet,WHY would you have to defend yourself when you were not harming anyone,but some overly-sensitive fuckwit was offended and decided you should be punished?

there is a plethora of historical examples i could use where tyrannical governments,despots and police states have literally quashed dissent,differing opinions and abhorrent behavior by simply creating fear..not of the government per se,but rather by their own neighbors.

which is EXACTLY what the PC police and social warriors use to silence their opponents.fear.

you are totally within your right to disagree with me,but my main argument is how easily this tactic can be abused and if we dont start paying attention now.we may not get a chance later.

it has happened before.
it can happen again.

*intent to harm is an actual legal charge,and can be prosecuted.

there was no harm here.except for feelings and racist/derogatory language.

i guess you could make the "emotional distress' argument,but in a 5 minute video you would be hard pressed to prove actual,irreparable harm.

i am rambling again,and probably lost the plot somewhere,but i hope i at least got my main point across.

there is a real and present danger here my man,and it threatens some of this countries core ideas and is ripe for abuse.

because the truth is:this tactic works and it works extremely well.

So...I go to John Lewis if I'm an old man who wants to look at little girls through a telescope?


The Man in the Moon had silver shoon
And his beard was of silver thread;
He was girt with pure gold and inaureoled
With gold about his head.
Clad in silken robe in his great white globe
He opened an ivory door
With a crystal key, and in secrecy
He stole o'er a shadowy floor;

Down a filigree stair of spidery hair
He slipped in gleaming haste,
And laughing with glee to be merry and free
He swiftly earthward raced.
He was tired of his pearls and diamond twirls;
Of his pallid minaret
Dizzy and white at its lunar height
In a world of silver set;

And adventured this peril for ruby and beryl
And emerald and sapphire,
And all lustrous gems for new diadems,
Or to blazon his pale attire.
He was lonely too with nothing to do
But to stare at the golden world,
Or to strain at the hum that would distantly come
As it gaily past him whirled;

And at plenilune in his argent moon
He had wearily longed for Fire-
Not the limpid lights of wan selenites,
But a red terrestrial pyre
With impurpurate glows of crimson and rose
And leaping orange tongue;
For great seas of blues and the passionate hues
When a dancing dawn is young;

For the meadowy ways like chrysophrase
By winding Yare and Nen.
How he longed for the mirth of the populous Earth
And the sanguine blood of men;
And coveted song and laughter long
And viands hot and wine,
Eating pearly cakes of light snowflakes
And drinking thin moonshine.

He twinkled his feet as he thought of the meat,
Of the punch and the peppery brew,
Till he tripped unaware on his slanting stair,
And fell like meteors do;
As the whickering sparks in splashing arcs
Of stars blown down like rain
From his laddery path took a foaming bath
In the ocean of Almain;

And began to think, lest he melt and stink,
What in the moon to do,
When a Yarmouth boat found him far afloat,
To the mazement of the crew
Caught in their net all shimmering wet
In a phosphorescent sheen
Of bluey whites and opal lights
And delicate liquid green

With the morning fish — 'twas his regal wish —
They packed him to Norwich town,
To get warm on gin in a Norfolk inn,
And dry his watery gown.
Though St. Peter's knell waked many a bell
In the city's ringing towers
To shout the news of his lunatic cruise
In the early morning hours,

No hearths were laid, not a breakfast made,
And no one would sell him gems;
He found ashes for fire, and his gay desire
For choruses and brave anthems
Met snores instead with all Norfolk abed,
And his round heart nearly broke,
More empty and cold than above of old,
Till he bartered his fairy cloak

With a half waked cook for a kitchen nook,
And his belt of gold for a smile,
And a priceless jewel for a bowl of gruel,
A sample cold and vile
Of the proud plum porridge of Anglian Norwich —
He arrived much too soon
For unusual guests on adventurous quests
From the Mountains of the Moon.

Yet this xenophobe still represents our community with his vile attacks on anyone "different" in the eyes of the casual visitor who does not have the experience we do.

Imagine seeing the page as a fresh newbie, seeing some disgusting homophobic rant and seemingly no one batting an eyelid at it.

Why do you have to say something ridiculously backwards and vile just because you don't agree with them? How does that advance your argument?

Why do you have to say something vile just because you don't agree with him? How does that advance your argument?

I suspect the FBI's reasoning for not considering it a genuine threat may be in part because the number of people who would actually go through with the kind of shit that she gets threatened with is statistically very small. Conversely, the number of jackasses on the internet who are willing to post all manner of vile garbage simply for their own amusement is HUGE. So that's why I have such a hard time taking the threats too seriously, that and people tend to focus on mass shootings and wind up greatly overestimating their chances of actually being involved in one. Seriously, you're way more likely to be run over while crossing the street by some dumbass texting while driving. Make sure to look both ways before crossing.

Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat.
I'll start with you tho.

Carrera is upset because:

Sar-sleaz-ian is an new-age-feminist hack who finds porn disgusting, and feels pity for any women who performs sex acts for money.

She belittles porn actresses like Mercedes & Cytherea as lowly abused victims.

Then, at Mercedes' request, refuses to support Cytherea when she ACTUALLY becomes a victim.

Anita is literally profiting off the fuax-oppression of women in gaming media & culture. [Cherry picking instead of highlighting the actual corruption in the culture]

Yet, she denies the agency of sex-workers to choose their profession, referring to them as "prostituted women".

This is why Sar-shittyhumanbeing-ian is a hypocrite, a fuax-intellectual, and [as Mercedes succinctly puts it] damaging gender relations.

Anita Sarkeesian is a troll and a puppet.
She's only stirring up shit to further her career.
It's more vile & disgusting than any of the stuff she's railing against.

Shit, this whole thing is some stupid first-world problem bullshit.

Quoting from an obviously man made book, even though it is 2000 years old, proves nothing, except you cannot think for yourself. If you have to quote this book, how about quoting the many evil things it says regarding slavery, woman, homosexuality, murder, rape, children, torture, etc,etc. The bible, as with other "holy" books, is vile and sickening; we are better off rid of it, and its twisted fanatics, before they drag us back to the dark ages.

The over rule of the will of DC voters sort of shows the need for DC statehood, or at least a step above what DC is now.

Lindsey Graham's statement is just vile. The whole way Congress sneaks provisions into unrelated bills needs to stop. Each piece of legislation needs to stand on its own. Sadly that would likely take a Constitutional Amendment and Congress isn't going to do that as then most of their secret provisions would never pass.