Is it just me, or does she look like a cross between Jewel Staite and Ana Kasparian?

Which I know is sexist as all Hell, but I kept thinking that while watching. Could have been thinking a LOT worse things, so I'm actually pretty pleased with the reaction.

Such a shame to see these kinds of sexist attacks on male public figures, who are targeted for no other reason than their gender.

I dunno about his comments on Trump making "sexist remarks" about Hillary.

Trump says that the only thing she has going for her (why she gets votes) is being a woman. Is that sexist? Yeah, probably. He says that her approval ratings are low, even among women. Is that hypocritical, considering his own numbers with women? Sure.

But is either of those statements actually *wrong*? I think that is much less clear cut.

McCain chose Palin as his running mate in 2008 for precisely one reason: she was a woman, and he and the GOP at large were terrified that Hillary (who seemed unstoppable at the time) would get the Democratic nod and then women would vote for her en masse due to some sort of "vagina solidarity" effect. In other words, the only thing Palin had going for her was being a woman. Is it sexist to say that? Maybe, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Hillary is admittedly a vastly more legitimate candidate than Palin was, but I think there is a certain degree of truth to the suggestion that being female is a pretty significant part of why she's getting the push from Democrat elites. And it is just as insulting for the Democratic elites to think that Hillary can benefit from "vagina solidarity" as it was for the GOP to think that about Palin.

@ChaosEngine

i think we agree more than we disagree.

example:
me:
"freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity."

you:
"As I've said before, the "dangers of PC" are vastly outweighed by the dangers of people using the so-called dangers of PC as an excuse for racist, sexist bullshit. This is how it works. They get to say their shit and we get to call them on it."

i was not accusing you of holding an extreme left ideology.i was simply pointing to the dangers of controlling speech.

in fact,just so you know i was paying attention,one of my favorite lines from you in regards to PC is "don't be a dick".

short and to the point.

the fault in our exchange may reside with me.
i am not "anti PC".
i am against those who hold a far more radical view than you do in regards to language,words,safe spaces,trigger warnings etc etc.who seek to demand,through political machinations,the legal impositions of certain words having legal consequences.

which is censorship.

i realize you are not part of this small (but growing) radical band of merry offendees,and you have stated so publicly and often.

my guilt lies in the fact that i will tag you to make a larger point.i basically used your comment to expand on the growing dangers of a small cadre of radical lefties who seek to control how we interact.

the reason i did this,and have in the past,is due to my perceptions of you being far more thicker skinned than most.when we are talking about people being offended easily,i need someone with a thicker skin to interact with to further my point.

that and i think you are decent dude.who is reasonable and rational.so even if there is a bit of assumption and presumption,you wont go full blown rage machine on me,and allow for a decent conversation.

so my apologies my man.
i tend to use your comments on PC to expand on a point that i find concerning.

@enoch, words are important. You should know as you seem to be unable to edit any of them out.

Briefly (because responding to your entire post would put us considerably closer to the entropic death of the universe) yes, I used to respect Frys opinions, now I don't. This is called changing your mind in light of new evidence.

Previously he was eloquent and compassionate, saving his ire for those deserving of it. Here he's just spiteful and grouchy, and his target is abuse victims??

As I said, even he realised how completely wrong he was.

But more importantly, you (and everyone else on this particular"anti-PC" bandwagon) seem to have confused criticism with censorship.

Go back and read my posts. Did I ever call for him to be censored? No, I responded to what he said and called it stupid. That is the essence of free speech.

I don't even fully disagree with him on a lot of his points. I don't really believe in "safe spaces" (I can understand the desire for them, but university is not an appropriate venue for them. I'm not keen on trigger warnings either, but OTOH, I haven't suffered that kind of trauma, so ultimately, I really don't think they do any harm, (although I would argue that a few seconds research should render many of them unnecessary). I would certainly never say that you can't study Titus Andronicus in class, but I don't see the harm in warning a rape survivor of the content either.

Basically, you and he are inventing boogeymen. There are a few instances of stupidity out there, but they are always there.

As I've said before, the "dangers of PC" are vastly outweighed by the dangers of people using the so-called dangers of PC as an excuse for racist, sexist bullshit. This is how it works. They get to say their shit and we get to call them on it.

Here's the deal. Louis CK can say the horrible things but they are to their bones true.

This isn't true. It presumes that the spouses aren't partial partners in the journey, working hard, learning the issues. Being role models.

Burr is stuffing these women into the tiny box of "spouse" as if that defines them utterly.

It has been true of some spouses.

But clearly not Hilary and clearly not Michelle Obama. And it wouldn't be true of Bill Clinton.

It's funnier when it is bone deep true. Then you can say "sexist" and "outrageous" things and they make you laugh in recognition.

No recognition from me here.

sexist

Some of the most stupid talking ever taped.

Don't think she can date males for any length of time. Once they start hearing this crap they dump her.

I had a hard time trying to describe this. My initial thought was to suggest she just got dumped, but I don't want to be sexist.

Either way I laughed a lot simply because of the stereotype she paints.

Oh yeah, I'm well aware that defending yourself can easily turn into a scene from a 70's kung fu movie with multiple attackers going after you for defending yourself...no matter how out of control the female attacker may be. There are many dumb, sexist douchebags out there just itching for a fight. My point is, there's absolutely no legitimate reason you can't defend yourself against a woman who's attacking you physically....idiot douchebags don't count as 'legitimate reasons' to me, but I don't disagree they're a consideration. EDIT: That said...I don't think black Rick Astley there would give me much pause.

My brother knows even better than I, he was attacked by a random angry drunk girl on the street in Austin, she threw her drink on him and sucker punched him in the face out of nowhere, over nothing (according to him), he slapped her, and woke up 5 minutes later face down on the sidewalk with a missing tooth and a broken motorcycle helmet, some 'bro' (read 'brah') sucker punched him in the back of the head and beat him with his own helmet, then probably went home to rape the drunk girl.

That said...if a woman wants to act like her sex isn't an issue and start a physical confrontation with someone much larger, they deserve the debilitating beat down they get and their sex and/or size should not be an issue. That's the logical outcome of believing in equality of the sexes in the eyes of the law.

Kevin over at Boston Robotics is just trying to prepare their robots to survive in a hard knock full of heartless arseholes and kids.

At least that's what my Dad told me.

That was a joke. My Dad is lovely. Domestic violence isn't funny. I'm sorry.

Anyway, tick ageist robot off the list. Next up is sexist, then racist... before long we'll have AI indistinguishable from humans!

Well. I have to disagree with that.

"If you're a transsexual then its those horrible CIS people"

Yeah. It often is unfortunately, and its horrid not because of malice so much as of because of ignorance.

and yes. What sane and reasonable person would be against equality for women...It's one thing to say it... The police will tell you they aren't a racist institution, hell, they even have some black cops! some of their best friends are black! I voted for Obama!

I guess my anxiety is this: You "fight", as you admit, the extremist end of "SJWs", which in the video/s are referred to simply as "those SJWs" then aren't you a) polarising the debate even further b) contributing in some sense to their coup of those movements by using the name of those movements as shorthand when you really mean an extremist element? c) feeding those undeserving elements with your attention? Isn't it better to debate specific issues, say, Tim Hunt being sacked for making a sexist joke, than this sort of "this group of people are to blame!" kinda discourse?

You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

I just wait until they throw in the DLC for free in GotY packages or it becomes really cheap in some sale. Most of the time I don't care about the DLC anyways as it's quite often MP stuff (Call Of Duty for example, never bought a single piece of DLC for those). I don't like 13 year old sexist racists, so I do SP only.
If it's worthwhile stuff (like the Skyrim add-ons or the extra Mortal Kombat characters), DLC is fine but if it's shit like horse armour or an extra pistol nobody needs, I'll ignore it.
I only get mad when the publisher fuck with the customers. The only reason I forgave Square Enix the Missing Link DLC fuckery is because it was really great.

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.

I never said you can't oppose institutional rape. That was a counter-example to your "history wasn't universally sexist" point. I thought that was pretty clear.

I'll concede that sexism wasn't universal, but nothing is, so that's a completely meaningless point. I was illustrating that history in general has been pretty fucking awful to women.

As for that definition, it's not mine. I actually looked it up before I used it to make sure I wasn't using it incorrectly.

"the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities"
- Merriam Webster
"The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
- Oxford
"Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women"
- Wikipedia
Do I need to go on?

And yes, the concept has been around for ages. Support for the concept is relatively recent and has brought great change.