60 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 20. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 15:10 |
ASeven |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 14:54 |
ASeven |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 14:53 |
Eirikrautha |
|
|
What's so funny about this article is that it comes hard on the heels on another RPS article (Found here) that copy/pasted some random graphs about men's versus women's wages and then thundered on about how game companies needed to fix the problem now. Only, as was pointed out ad nauseum in the comments, the information he copy/pasted was inadequate to even frame the problem, much less act upon (and some posts even noted that the info might provide evidence that the problem is getting better!). Walker's response was a dismissive rant that called anyone who disagreed with him "idiots".
The fact is that this whole "social" focus of RPS is nothing more than mental masturbation. John Walker has no more expertise on this subject than you or I (and arguably less, in many cases)... he simply has a big megaphone for his opinions. Walker's no more knowledgeable or correct because he has a large platform than Bill O'Reilly is because O'Reilly has a TV show. BOTH are populist blowhards. And neither can handle disagreement, because their "understanding" of the issues is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Walker has hitched his wagon to a popular refrain (perhaps to show how "enlightened" he is... I don't know... that's his cross to bear). It's his website, so that's his prerogative. But don't expect blind deference simply because you've got something you feel strongly about. If you can't articulate why what you think is correct (because I couldn't care less about how you feel), then you're just throwing a tantrum. And this article is no more articulate of the intellectual case than the one I referenced above.
The herd of free-thinking minds is just sad, when you look at it objectively... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 14:48 |
ASeven |
|
|
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 14:26:
I call this new breed of feminists... -> fembots
to clearly distinguish that it is not an attack on REAL sexism issues. But rather on the hilarious thin skinned modern professional (web) victims that indeed make sure we all get aggressive over this topic.
And let me be clear, fembots means both men and women who do this. This 2nd breed of "feminists" has absolutely NO INTENTION of equalizing genders. Their only goal is self-fulfillment by control, denouncement, censorship and oppression.
So what are fembots? Women who claim that microphones on conferences are somehow modified to make their voice appear "screachy". I am not making that up. 1:1 translation of a post by a women that circulated in Germany's Pirate Party web-bubble. The same women who runs the circle of gender equalization at the party. So you can know what you get there. 100% bullshit, 0% actual feminist issues solved.
This 2nd type of feminists really pisses me off too. If putting them down is sexist, then MEH, I don't care ;p
I am for gender equalization. Not for thought equalization.
Well spoken. I am more straight to the point and call these new breed of men and women as feminazis and femistasis, because those two words aptly describe their goals, to silence anyone they don't agree with, or that offends them.
The sad thing is that people like the guy below who has no idea what he's talking about would do much good to view videos that deconstructs this new feminism with facts and facts alone, and then all that is left remaining after all the pseudo-bullshit these professional victims shout is just a plan to censor and control everything they don't agree with. I am all for equality, I fought and fight for actual gender equality since, unlike these professional victims I actually do stuff in real life to further the cause of gender equality, however I am against censorship, oppression of free expression and free thought just because someone on the internet was offended by a post. Grow a fucking skin, you miserable sacks of shit.
This new breed of feminism is poisoning atheism like nothing I've seen before. They have attached to atheism like parasites and are effectively destroying atheism and all their communities, a thing that not even any religious group ever was able to do. But this is a discussion for another time and place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 14:37 |
ASeven |
|
|
Yaogun wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 14:34:
Yeah! Those chicks just need thicker skins! I mean, I've never been the target of that level of hatred because, hey, I'm a privileged dude on the internet (HIGH FIVE BRO!). But that just must mean I've got the thickest skin EVER. See, I've got this whole feminism thing figured out. I mean, a bunch of dudes on the internet told me about it, and let's be honest is there a better way to learn about feminism? Game, set, match! There's NO WAY! In fact I'm SO sure I know what it's like that I'll explain it to you! Thank god you all have me!
You You're an idiot to believe in what you wrote . <- The point you missed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 14:34 |
Yaogun |
|
|
| Yeah! Those chicks just need thicker skins! I mean, I've never been the target of that level of hatred because, hey, I'm a privileged dude on the internet (HIGH FIVE BRO!). But that just must mean I've got the thickest skin EVER. See, I've got this whole feminism thing figured out. I mean, a bunch of dudes on the internet told me about it, and let's be honest is there a better way to learn about feminism? Game, set, match! There's NO WAY! In fact I'm SO sure I know what it's like that I'll explain it to you! Thank god you all have me! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 14:26 |
eRe4s3r |
|
|
I call this new breed of feminists... -> fembots
to clearly distinguish that it is not an attack on REAL sexism issues. But rather on the hilarious thin skinned modern professional (web) victims that indeed make sure we all get aggressive over this topic.
And let me be clear, fembots means both men and women who do this. This 2nd breed of "feminists" has absolutely NO INTENTION of equalizing genders. Their only goal is self-fulfillment by control, denouncement, censorship and oppression.
So what are fembots? Women who claim that microphones on conferences are somehow modified to make their voice appear "screachy". I am not making that up. 1:1 translation of a post by a women that circulated in Germany's Pirate Party web-bubble. The same women who runs the circle of gender equalization at the party. So you can know what you get there. 100% bullshit, 0% actual feminist issues solved.
This 2nd type of feminists really pisses me off too. If putting them down is sexist, then MEH, I don't care ;p
I am for gender equalization. Not for thought equalization. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:39 |
ASeven |
|
|
killer_roach wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 13:27:
ASeven wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 13:11:
Exactly. The double-standard is sickening.
"I am not willing to let this post become yet another platform for the people who wish to silence this debate."
Therefore his solution is to silence the debate. Amazing!
"Open debate" is never about open debate. It's about one side getting to say whatever they want and the other being forbidden to. People want to be thought of as bold and courageous, but at the same time want to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you reap what you sow or you admit that you're a coward that craves a level of attention that your merits do not deserve.
Indeed. Without wanting to open a can of worms here, I consider there exists two types of feminism. The first type is the real feminism, the one fighting for equality between women and men, fighting for equality of all, and the second type this new breed of PC feminism, where people play the part of modern professional victims, using the pseudo-social term of patriarchy. These people who are so PC, have so much of a thin skin, want to censor everyone in the name of "feminism". This article is an example, they want people to discuss and speak up and yet close discussion. This is the internet, people will always be trolls, harsh, idiots. You either grow a skin or try to censor people from expressing opinions, no matter how stupid they are, and this second option not only is deeply wrong, it's what they are now trying to do, because they're professional victims that get offended by the slightest thing, and I mean slightest.
As much as I disagree with Thunderfoot in different points, he has been spot on in denouncing this new breed of "feminism", which has more to do with controlling and censoring free expression than actually fighting for equality between genders.
Here's a good video explaining how rotten this modern "feminism" is and how far it is from actual feminism: http://youtu.be/95LG9crl3yo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:38 |
Cutter |
|
|
I much prefer, rum, sodomy, and the lash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "They call me a chauvinist pig. I am . . . and I don't give a damn!" - Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:27 |
killer_roach |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 13:11:
Exactly. The double-standard is sickening.
"I am not willing to let this post become yet another platform for the people who wish to silence this debate."
Therefore his solution is to silence the debate. Amazing!
"Open debate" is never about open debate. It's about one side getting to say whatever they want and the other being forbidden to. People want to be thought of as bold and courageous, but at the same time want to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you reap what you sow or you admit that you're a coward that craves a level of attention that your merits do not deserve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:17 |
ASeven |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 13:15:
Hey, look, white cisgendered males already acting as expected!
Hey, look, Beamer being an idiot. Again! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:15 |
Beamer |
|
|
| Hey, look, white cisgendered males already acting as expected! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:11 |
ASeven |
|
|
Elf Shot The Food wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 13:10:
I like how he wants people to "speak out" and yet the comments are closed.
Exactly. The double-standard is sickening.
"I am not willing to let this post become yet another platform for the people who wish to silence this debate."
Therefore his solution is to silence the debate. Amazing! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:10 |
Elf Shot The Food |
|
|
| I like how he wants people to "speak out" and yet the comments are closed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:08 |
ASeven |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 13:01 |
Jivaro |
|
|
TychoCelchuuu wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 11:49:
Really awesome article.
Yep, very well written. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 12:30 |
Squirmer |
|
|
Walker just needs to get on with posting the articles he keeps talking about. It's all these self-indulgent articles that ultimately revolve around him that people are fed up with. RPS seems to have more articles explaining the social issues they're going to talk about than articles actually about those issues.
(E.g. the article expressing concerns about violence at the start of the year, which claimed they would be making it a big issue, but which has resulted in nothing since.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2013, 12:21 |
Beamer |
|
|
| I love that he calls out idiots using "white knight." That's a favorite for a small handful of users here, and they use it unironically without realizing it makes them look like they have IQs around 45. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
60 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
