There are serious problems with Sommers video. If anyone hasn't seen it yet, watch it here.

Basically, her argument is "I looked at some literature (I'm not going to tell you what though) and I concluded there is no misogyny in gaming. You can trust me because I call myself a Feminist."

That's called "appeal to authority" and it's a logical fallacy.

The hugely ironic thing is that anti-Sarkeesian people are constantly going on about Sarkeesian is not qualified to critique games because she only played some of the games she talks about in the videos and watched YouTube game footage of the rest. Yet Sommers admits in the start of this video that she hasn't played video games since Pac Man in the 80s! By anti-Sarkeesian standards, she's even less qualified to talk about games than Sarkeesian is.

But that doesn't stop people who don't like Sarkeesian from trotting out this video as some supposedly magical proof that Sarkeesian's arguments have been debunked.

You can lump me in with the racists when, and only when, you see me doing something racist. My skin color does not qualify.

If you're attacking racism by being racist, your problem is clearly not racism. Your problem is being the target of racism...apparently it's fine if the target is someone else.

The thing is, Brand does have notions of what the post revolution system would resemble but he does so by reference to people he considers better informed than himself.

i.e. he is reluctant to give people some half baked concoction of his own as it's not the area he is most qualified to speak about. Instead he points us at philosophers and activists who have a lifetimes study and insight on such matters.

I think this is a far more laudable position than either A. defining a post revolutionary world arbitrarily or B. taking no position at all.

It's far more dangerous for a Revolution to have a half baked goal than none at all, hence he keeps his mouth shut about specifics he's not qualified to comment on as any wise person should.

The worst possible position to me is to accept the status quo regardless of what better solutions one may or may not have. There is clearly a massive problem and moreover one which causes untold suffering on a global scale. It's essential to recognise that before anything productive is going to happen.

Brands only goal is to help make recognition of this simple fact more prevalent. From there people far better qualified step in to work on the details. Such people are very much already around and have done a great deal of work to further this goal but they don't have media platforms like Brand.

All he and other such media personalities have to do is switch people on to the idea, leaving other things to the better qualified. Good revolutions are co-operative efforts rather than personality cults. (I'd even go so far as to say they go bad precisely because figureheads fail to recognise their limits)

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

I never purchase animals from breeders or shops, because I view their ilk as unethical in the face of the thousands of animals that ALREADY EXIST and DIE every year.

Stupid humans and their penchant for declaring one set of genetic qualities as better than another. A dog is a dog. A cat is a cat. Save the ones that need saving and halt your superfluous breeding to make money off of selective assholes.

I've owned a beautiful russian blue, orange tabby, dalmatian mix, german shepard, and austrailian cattle dog that I purchased from the pound. Pretty cheap, I did a good deed, and they ended up being some of the greatest companions of my life.

Seriously, stop breeding animals for so-called "pure" breeds. It's sickening. Actual lovers of animals and all things cuddly, think about this fact and stop doublethinking yourself into believing you're an animal lover. You're NOT. You love the idea of something cute that you believe is superior to another something that is less cute. And that line of thinking most certainly does not qualify you for anything other than a cretin.

^ This idea that people involved in politics, religion and science CANNOT profit is dumb and is perpetuated by DUMB PEOPLE. They all do and must profit to survive in the civilization that our politicians over the centuries created(warped?!). "Follow the money trail" is a dumb red herring. The money trail leads to ALL PEOPLE.

I personally know a good number of pastors/ministers AND people involved in the sciences (both natural and social), as well as a couple people involved in local politics -- and you know what number 1 is?

Money.

Raising it so that they can live a life as a man of god/science, keep their church/research facility running, buy the things they need to do their job, and continue the time investment required for research.

IMHO it's the politicians and talking heads (in ALL political parties) who need it the LEAST -- because they're not trying to help people or increase our mental/spiritual intelligence as a species, they're funding a GODDAMN POPULARITY CONTEST; the cult of their political party and the cult of SELF. Oh look at me I'm Bill O'Reilly I say things that people agree with and I'm a freaking drama queen about it.

Television and radio asshats. Look at the pattern. Does popular opinion lead to proper behavior? No it leads to popular behavior. That's why we have reality television and that's why we have dumb asses running our media and our cuntry. I'm certainly not qualified to say shit but WTF, it's fairly obvious logic that almost all people ignore or just accept because IT IS DIFFICULT TO THINK CRITICALLY.

Instead of thinking critically and correctly, we concern ourselves with the social spectrum of our society, which is really just the art and pattern detection of social manipulation. You trick people. It's trickery and data manipulation. How can I raise money? Well, I know the people that watch my television channel believe this, so let's TRICK THEM BY MAKING INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THAT COME ONTO OUR PROGRAM LOOK LIKE THEY'RE THE STUPID ONES.

And here's the footage. Here it is. Learn. I learn. I say dumb things and I learn. Now YOU must learn. Science, bitches. Science. It isn't just a bunch of things made up to make money. All things require money, but the truth can be articulated without passion, whereas manipulators require it to push their ideas forward and when analyzed it becomes very apparent that that is all it is.

@enoch, if I sound evangelical, it's because I have an allergic reaction to misinformation and a deep aversion to disinformation...

Here are my comments, interspersed:

> and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked
> in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators?"

By corrupt currency, do you mean the Euro? These are a big percentage of the so-called "1st world countries."

> are you working for goldman sachs?
> whats the deal man?

Are these borderline ad hominem, or did I miss something...

> denmark? finland?

Is that it, do you want to limit the evidence to the scandinavian countries? Fine, list for me the countries you want me to address and compare to the US or more free market economies and we will proceed from there.

> but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
> socialism-communism=not the same.

Personal attacks aside, communism is a type of socialism in the Marxist sense. But to clarify, please define 'socialism' as you think it should be defined, if something other than public control over the means of production.

> and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

Are you getting upset about something, or are you not calling me a "free market carny barker"?

> 1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?

What is the currency issue? The central bank's monopoly in currency? You get rid of legal tender laws and let people decide what currency they want to use and accept.

> 2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?

You have to be more specific as to what "level playing field means in practice" so that I can answer this.

> 3.or can you outright buy people?

Do you mean slaves? No, that goes against free-market non-aggression and self-ownership principles.

> 4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that
> cannot be commodified?

Again, please be more specific about what you mean by "commodified." Do you mean are you free to buy and sell anything as long as you don't violate self and property rights? Not clear what you mean here but I'm sure with some clarification I can address it.

> look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market. but so can
> a lot of bad. eyes open my man.

Sure, but please tell me, what specifically bad can happen in a free market that cannot happen as bad or worse in a non-free market?

> reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
> from the rand institute i think. the whole cold war was set up on this dudes
> principles of self-interest. did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data
> seemed conclusive...until he did the same experiment with secretaries. turns
> but they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-
> operate with each other.

How is this relevant? People like to cooperate. That's the basis for the voluntary free market and why it works.

> well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting. ya dont
> say? very interesting.

I agree. Voluntary interaction equals cooperation. That is the free market. Coercion is the non-free market. Is there disagreement here, because I don't see it.

> i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
> and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital. but
> unrestricted free markets? naw..no thanks.

I still don't know the specifics of how exactly you want to "restrict it" and how specifically you want to restrict it. You must forgive me if I don't think you are as competent to restrict me and my life and my business and I myself am. The same with your life and business, I am not qualified to restrict it.
Who is then? Specifically, "who" do you want to restrict you, and your freedom to engage in free trade?

Jesus Christ. I wish I knew why I cared about this so much but it's late and I'm tired so, fuck it:

The fucking kid's head is laying on the ground for three fucking seconds after he falls. You're fucking delusional.

There is no HD res for this video. Are you trolling or are you an idiot?

The concrete is pretty standard throughout the park with a few exceptions. That's your argument? This whole thing is a skate park from the parking lot at the south to the street at the north? Seriously?

Obstacles (in this case concrete benches throughout the entire park) that have marks on them do not qualify as a skate park. There are marks from skating on every bench, rail and staircase in my entire city. I assure you, the whole city is not a skate park because there are marks.

There are no ramps out of the skate area. If you can't see it on the overhead, look at the pic I posted. Seems like a small distinction? Nope. Stairs, not ramps. In fact, I can't see one ramp the entire place.

The "clear separation" comes from the stairs, wall, trees and fucking garbage cans surrounding the entire skating area which, by the way, has been sunk below the grade of the whole rest of the park! I mean, I guess they could've built a fence too but how clear does it have to be?

The kid was heading in the direction of the street, yes. But whose to say he wasn't going toward the fucking swings or anything else? Are you really now trying to imply that the mom was letting her kid run through the fucking street? Also, you don't have to start referring to him as "the child" now.

Nice way of avoiding the "barrels" question. I was expecting you to say he came out from behind that Greyhound bus that's so clearly present.

And enough with the fucking proximity of the fucking mom already. Kids are allowed to run through parks. And the guy who hits a kid with a fucking skateboard is the one who bears responsibility for hitting a kid with a fucking skateboard. Ahhh!! Seriously, what fucking world do you live in?

Alright, sorry. I'm cooked. Later.

The government's mistake was placing the child in the care of someone not qualified to care for children (or anyone). Taking her away from parents who do drugs was not a mistake. Parents are supposed to be responsible and set an example for their children. They should teach their children to stimulate their minds and find joy in that, not through drugs and alcohol. Yes, being a parent is tough and there's a lot of pressure involved. Deal with it like an adult, don't try to suppress it with a blunt or bottle.

The government clearly needs to review their foster candidates more thoroughly. That's the root of the issue here. Don't make this political and blame it on the "war on drugs."

How exactly are they less free?

Am I taking people's freedom away if I have them pass a test before they can use a car?

Am I taking peoples' freedom away If I take away their license if they were driving drunk or doing something else stupid? Yes, but this is universally considered acceptable.

You guys love to compare guns to cars so I'm shoving the analogy down your throat.

Do people generally complain about taking away the freedom of criminals when they do a criminal act? nope. Again, it is universally accepted that it is OK to take rights away if someone is a demonstrated menace to society

These are the *choices* people make. Freedom isn't about unrestricted access, It's about the freedom to make choices. You can make any choice you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of choice of others and you are willing to accept the consequences of said choices.

Can you at least agree that there are certain responsibilities attached to owning a gun? So why is regulation of weapons to ensure those responsibilities are adhered to such a foreign concept to you? Even the NRA "claims" to be interested in firearm safety. Was the idiot in this video being safe?

You have the freedom to go to college...IF you have the grades and money.
You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol...IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely
You have the freedom to have a certain job, IF you have the skills and education required.
And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote....IF you can provide an ID.

This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?

Are we taking away someone's freedom if they're not qualified to have a certain job?

And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items.

The idiot in this video has DEMONSTRATED that he is unsafe with a weapon. Where are the repercussions? When does he pay for his actions as you say.

Actually, you're the one making an unwarranted logical leap by assuming you can apply standard arithmetic logic to an infinite series. In the vid, it's done to explore the issue but it does not qualify as mathematical proof.

Yes, individuals within such a group pay taxes through income, land, sales and payroll; these people form the membership of an association. Any association that is engaging in lobbying activities will pay a 35% tax on those activities and a percentage of the members dues (donations) will be declared non-deductible. If you think lobbyists shouldn't pay taxes on what they do, then you clearly do not understand the economic benefit that they reap from such activities. However, the individuals are not asked to pay more taxes, they are simply not allowed to deduct as much from their income taxes. Boo-freaking-hoo!

http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12223

Groups applying for 501(c)(4) status are essentially requesting that donations to their group be anonymous. However, if a group is actively intervening in a political campaign, their members (donors) do not qualify for this privilege; they would be considered a 527. The IRS was scrutinizing groups asking for 501(c)(4) status because, well, that's their job. If a group applying for such status was actually a front for a political campaign or primarily engaged in media buys for election influencing (for example), then they don't qualify. Doesn't matter if you like who they are backing or not, dems da rules.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations

hmm... On further review, this may not qualify. @chingalera! Is this valid for #cooking?

Nope, I'm not qualified to do real research into the causes and scope of gun of violence, and apparently neither are you, if you think all it takes is looking at FBI numbers. Just looking at FBI numbers wouldn't associate violent crime with leaded gasoline, but there is an extremely strong correlation there, and a path for possible causation as well.

I prefer to let those with the experience to do so meaningfully, adjust for factors like poverty-levels, drug bans, environmental isses and all of the myriad other inter-related factors. I know enough about it to know that to do it right takes years of study. When you have such training, or if you can point to a study by someone who does, then I'll look into credentials to see if it's worth looking at.

Again, -my- point was that we have no such research, because the NRA killed it. Try as you like to derail that point, I consider it pretty telling.