Look @00Scud00, Lewinski's talk is about shame and cybermobbing. She experienced the latter because of her actions and as a result, when she talks about online -abuse, she views it through the prism of her own lifestory, one that is about shame. It is similar to Tyler Clementi, whom she talked about.
However, at the end of the day, her talk is about cyberbullying, online abuse and mob-behaviour.
What connects her and Sarkeesian is cyberbullying and misogyny. They both expierenced that without a doubt.
The big difference is, Lewinsky did something wrong, she enganged in adultery. It may be excusable because she was young and in a relationship with very uneven powerdynamics, it may be understandable because people do fall in love and cheat but it was wrong. The problem is that a matter that should concern only a handful of people became a media event because of the politics involved. That lead to slutshaming and embarrassing her not just online but by all media.
Her case is special because she was the first person to get such an response online and that is what she focuses on in her talk. It's not just about the media (be it print or TV), it's especially about the internet. That is why Clementi is in part so important to her.
Sarkeesian on the other side didn't do something wrong. She started to talk publically about the way the media, especially games, treat and view women from a (sane IMO) feministic point of view.
The end result is disastrous. She experienced a backlash that was not only the highest degree of misogyny, it was also a prime example of a group of people online lashing out at somebody. Cyberbullying and online abuse at its worst.
There is the connection between the two. Sarkeesian wasn't slutshamed, she just got called 'slut' and 'whore'. She didn't have private, sexual details of her life revealed online, it was just her adress and getting rape-threats.
The connection between the two women is online abuse.

Actually, Sarkeesian got it worse. She just did a job but Lewinsky sucked off a married man. Monica didn't deserve what she got, that level of humiliation and hatred. She made a stupid mistake, she made a human mistake. The price she paid was unbearably, unfairly high. I'm sorry for her.
Anita just talked about a topic she felt strongly about. People online threatened her with bodily harm. That's worse.

@dag mentioned Justine Sacco. Her case is completely different from those other two women. Somehow, Monica Lewinsky still talked about her. That's why her TED Talk is so good, she talks about a problem that exists mainly in the online world nowadays.
Cyberbullying. Mobmentality. Onlineabuse.

Can you order a robot whore to the room please?

Jesus Christ was apparently quite a tolerant bloke. He hung out with the whores, the beggars, the undesirables etc, he told parables about "good" people turning a blind eye to the hurting of their brother while a Samaritan turned out to be the truly good person. He said "Judge not lest ye be judged".

I don't even believe the guy was anything other than an altruistic nutter (if he existed at all) and I know his message better than you, or the douchebag in the video...

Persecution is being tossed in an arena with lions. It's being nailed to a cross. It isn't "co-existing with others and not getting the privilege of being able to make rules on how they live their lives". That's called equality, respect, common decency. You and you're ilk don't know true suffering mate.

Perhaps if you actually emulated the person you claim to worship (you know, the one that is waiting for you in the afterlife with a big fucking stick and an accounting of your years of intolerance) rather than made up your own interpretation, you'd actually be a christian worthy of the name...

And if you want to witness suffering, go minister in Africa for a few years, then get back to us about just how bad it is to be "persecuted"...

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

holy shit..one massive straw man.
let us peruse the buffet and only pick the tasty bits so we can better make our point.

christ this was dumb,all to prove what exactly?
conservatives are less racist than liberals? really? that is an actual point?

well fuck me in the face with a chain saw i love me some condescending pandering with my wheaties.

how about this?
a racist can be conservative OR liberal!

it amazes me how many people are so gleefully unaware of their own predjudices.

and prager university?
you mean dennis-pandering-whore-for-cash-prager?
oh fuck that douchenozzle.

"Is that the best you can do?" Is a pretty strange thing for Thor to yell.

Clearly the missing answers to the tights question were 'merry man' and 'boy-whore'.

I like dressing underage rent boys as little girls so I can fuck them and jerk them off and pull on their pigtails all at once.

@lantern53

But seriously, cops are racist.

Yes Black Cops, Asian Cops, Hispanic Cops.

Being a police officer makes you racist.
Because the culture of law enforcements preys on the poor and minority groups.

So if you're told as a rookie "Go to the poor neighbor and patrol the streets"

Eventually you're going to come across desperate, uneducated people FROM ALL BACKGROUNDS.

You'll see gangsters, addicts, thieves, whores, etc.

If you mostly patrol poor black or white or asian or hispanic neighborhoods, you mostly begin to distrust any black or white or asian or hispanic person.

Being a cop eventually makes you distrust everyone who looks a certain way.

Those stereotypes about all black males being scary savage thugs starts to ring true.

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.

I asked you if you had evidence of your claims, you ignored that query, so I logically assumed you don't. You still refuse, claiming it would do no good, but you have never tried (because you've clearly already made up your mind about me & my positions), still leading to the conclusion you don't have any.
I have the knowledge/memory of the reported threats, and her reaction. That's all I needed to dispute your contention that she cut comments off solely to silence reasoned debate.
Again, you have still not backed up any of your statements, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that you can't, and are just riding your high horse and acting the fool. Please prove that impression wrong by supplying the repeatedly requested evidence, or prove it correct by continuing to simply claim it will be ignored and so refusing.

EDIT: and I'm not ignoring Bobknight!
and if using a word's technical meaning is denigrating, that's the denigrateds' problem IMO. They should own it, there's nothing wrong with it. I didn't mind being called a janitor instead of a custodial technician. If she's called them 'dirty whores on film', then she meant it to be denigrating, and I'll change my mind.

I'm pretty much a whore for the the top 15/30 list. Constantly referencing it for one reason or another. Also it changes often enough and happens to be the videos id think first time visitors would find most interesting due to them being quite popular and more chance enjoyable to random viewing. I don't see how you can lose with top 15.

I do see suggested videos also being okay for random newer user or first timers(they are large recent vote getters), but for me and i assume other heavy users i have no interest in them(been there done that).

How fucking broken does the police force need to be for this to happen to an elderly, skinny man? HOW FUCKING BROKEN?!

The police are not there to give out punishment. They are there to bring the guilty before the courts. They have certain powers to issue tickets, but beyond that it is not their place to decide if someone is to be punished or not. That's the court's job.

Even if they had watched the guy do something illegal, if they have hold of him and he is no threat to them there is no reason, at all, for them to use any force beyond what is necessary to get him before the courts. None. This guy was no threat at all physically. Even if he was swearing and abusive, even if he called the officer's mother a whore, or his kids fucking retards it doesn't matter. The police should be above that. They should record it, make sure there's evidence of it and bring him, safely and with as little force as necessary before a judge.

At what point did America hand over the rule of law to the police? At what point did they make it OK for the police to dole out physical punishment? Even if the guy had done something illegal they can't just choose to hurt him.

The fact that not only had they not seen him doing anything wrong, and the call to them didn't allege any crime, just a suspicious person, and that person turned out to be a skinny Indian granddad who had done nothing wrong and posed no threat at all and the TRAINING OFFICER felt it was OK for him to throw the man to the ground shows the system is completely and utterly broken.

I hope this guy gets the book thrown at him. I hope his life is fucked. I hope this piece of shit goes to prison and gets his fucking ring torn to fucking shreds.

But most of all I hope that that isn't seen as and end to it. I hope that cases like this will lead to real reform of the police service in America because it fucking needs it. I've heard the 'few bad apples' bullshit and it's bollox. This guy did an appalling thing, right out in the open. He clearly believes that it's OK and that he won't get in trouble for it. We can all speculate as to what would happen with this case if there hadn't been video footage of it, and you can believe they'd still be prosecuting if you like. Good for you, you fucking idiot.

All police need to be held to account all the time. they need to be wearing cameras, and there needs to be strong sanctions against those officers who's cameras just happen to have been left off, or keep breaking or whatever else they come up with.

Great link, thanks for posting. My GP is a whore. OMG.

But... but I already enrolled in his 12 week course "horseback archery on foot." And what do I do about this LARS tattoo? I just don't think my friends will ever take me seriously again after I invested so much in Lars.

Goddamn you, Lars, you fucking piece of shit I hope you choke on piss and DIE. My whole goddamn life is a whore-mongering lie, imagined as the solipsistic plunge of a physically and mentally inferior charlatan in a shitty and superficial world, but which is more likely the dying thoughts of a misshapen and misfiring synapse in a soup of decaying matter once thought alive.

She's been pissing on us all day already!
That dirty whore!

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.