GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[Durandal]

Unfortunately, until we collectively learn that it's actually safe to simply ignore them and let their silliest declarations speak for themselves, because they're not so close to taking over the world that it'll be all over if we dare turn our backs for even a moment, they'll continue to reap precisely the ugly, self-destructive over-reactions they're seeking from at least a small segment of "the opposition", and laugh all the way to the proverbial, if not literal, bank every single time. Frankly, whether or not you believe that the media is hopelessly biased in their favor or not, it's still a bad strategy to obsess over every ridiculous thing they post.

I'll repeat it again: Starship Sarkeesian is fueled by hate.

Sarkeesian isn't relevant anymore, she's way past her prime time and her ideological seeds have already been sown, with the torch carried over to her many loyal subjects. All she does anymore is preach to the crowd at the umpteenth 'diversity in gaming' event for that sweet speaker money while her husband continues to make an absolute fool of himself to the point where not even his would-be target audience can take him seriously. I can't exactly put my finger on why Jonathan McIntosh and Neil Breen are so alike.

If there was no misogyny, it would be necessary to create it. At this point you don't even have to do anything to stoke the fires. A post taken out of context or a mere retweet is more than enough to constitute as evidence against the rampant racism and misogyny in our society. Just look at the whole Ghostbusters Reboot Defense Force fiasco which underpinned all dislikes of the new Ghostbusters trailer on racism and misogyny since the majority of people on YouTube are apparently sexists. Even AVGN refusing to review it is more than enough for the GRDF to inform the masses through a shitload of articles across many news sites on how fucked we are. It's a strange new age where the enlightened writers are waging war against the uneducated masses in the comment section. Even a local gaming magazine I've read often as a child seems to have jumped on this train, despite that magazine being widely known for being politically incorrect at the time. Pure coincidence, I suppose.

[BIL]

This has to be a joke right? I don't pay much attention to The Gaming Community these days, but there's no way anyone is that much of a pussy.

Look up Chris-Chan.

To be fair on Chris, he genuinely is a pussy, and a mentally handicapped one at that. Jmac just plays one on the internet.

Speaking of, wahooo! The last several days' begging offensive netted Jon's Patreon a whole additional twenty bucks! That male privilege will surely be kicking in any second now.

[BulletMagnet]

Sarkeesian isn't relevant anymore, she's way past her prime time and her ideological seeds have already been sown, with the torch carried over to her many loyal subjects.

Whoever the flavor of the week is, my assertion stays the same: treating the most asinine stuff the so-called "SJW" crowd comes up with as a clarion call to "wage war in the comments section" only tells them that they've hit a nerve and should do so again, and simultaneously gives the rest of the world the impression that there may actually be something to that nonsense after all. If it all really was just being pulled out of thin air in a cynical attempt to fleece the gullible, we would be confident enough to largely let its purveyors dig their own graves, as always happens before long; as it stands we're just keeping the fires burning.

[Mischief Maker]

At the same time, know when you're being pandered to.

I just saw Milo Yiannopoulos on the Joe Rogan podcast for a second time. I consider that dude the exact equal to Sarkeesian in terms of a non-gamer hitching their wagon to a hotbutton issue to punch their meal ticket. The couple of articles by him that I read, there's always a suspicious omission. He'll talk 'til the cows come home about game critics docking a game because a female character shows too much skin, but you never hear him mention the much bigger issue of publishers using their advertising dollars and early build access to lean on game sites for higher scores, sometimes to the point of getting critics fired. Why isn't he going after these big publishers? Don't want to burn any bridges future-career-wise.

[Durandal]

Sarkeesian isn't relevant anymore, she's way past her prime time and her ideological seeds have already been sown, with the torch carried over to her many loyal subjects.

Whoever the flavor of the week is, my assertion stays the same: treating the most asinine stuff the so-called "SJW" crowd comes up with as a clarion call to "wage war in the comments section" only tells them that they've hit a nerve and should do so again, and simultaneously gives the rest of the world the impression that there may actually be something to that nonsense after all. If it all really was just being pulled out of thin air in a cynical attempt to fleece the gullible, we would be confident enough to largely let its purveyors dig their own graves, as always happens before long; as it stands we're just keeping the fires burning.

As much as I'd love for people to stop getting upset about bait and instead ridicule it from a distance or something, if one guy bites it, others who kept ignoring it will follow once the bait keeps getting cast as they conclude that ignoring something isn't preventing it from repeatedly happening.

At the same time, know when you're being pandered to.

I just saw Milo Yiannopoulos on the Joe Rogan podcast for a second time. I consider that dude the exact equal to Sarkeesian in terms of a non-gamer hitching their wagon to a hotbutton issue to punch their meal ticket. The couple of articles by him that I read, there's always a suspicious omission. He'll talk 'til the cows come home about game critics docking a game because a female character shows too much skin, but you never hear him mention the much bigger issue of publishers using their advertising dollars and early build access to lean on game sites for higher scores, sometimes to the point of getting critics fired. Why isn't he going after these big publishers? Don't want to burn any bridges future-career-wise.

The guy knows his audience. You can't really do anything against the Corporate machine by yourself other than merely bring a travesty to light like John Oliver does and try to get your viewers off their asses, only for your viewers to do jack as you move on to the next terrible issue plaguing our country in next week's episode (unless it involves popularizing hashtags on social media like #DonaldDrumpf which everyone is somehow willing to participate in). But pandering to people with a large presence on social media and informing them against other people on social media who are trying to make the internet overly politically correct? Better revolve your entire identity around being anti-PC and rev up that ad money, then. His articles are good for a few laughs, but don't really provide an original view on recent internet issues other than "I'm super fabulous and a dangerous faggot".

[atheistgod1999]

You guys are lucky to have graduated before SJWs took over. I'm spoonfed their bullshit at school constantly at things like assemblies on how minorities, bisexuals, etc. are oppressed.

It's a yearly thing to have a schoolwide sophomore speech contest. There's an assembly where the 5 finalists out of ~500 give their speeches and people vote the winner. This year, 3 were about the following: cops are racist, kids' shows are sexist (1969 Scooby-Doo was the example; nothing has changed since 1969), and commercials are sexist (laxative and yogurt ads typically star men and women respectively). Only 2 weren't SJW: one I forget and learning from mistakes. People only cheered for the SJW ones. I would link a video of it but I can't find one. Try searching for "newton north sophomore speech 2016".

[Blinge]

No one is going to look that shit up. No one cares what happens at your high school.
I understand it's difficult to look beyond your own little world at this point, we were all young once. However, these issues take place at your school, in your life. If you don't like it, deal with it there, not here.
Get into debates and public speaking yourself if you have the social skills or intelligence! You nascent republican you.

This seems to be an attempt to combat your perceived 'hatred' of you on this forum by being chummy with anti-SJW people here.
I'm sure quash and chums would gladly welcome you into their ranks.

Learn the difference between real societal issues and what some cunt on the internet is saying about a female costume in a video game. Maybe there's some truth in a statement like 'minorities are oppressed.' But eh, i'm white middle class, I couldn't possibly be allowed to comment on these things..
Equating everything you call "sjw" issues to each other, dismissing them all outright is the mark of the conservative keyboard warrior. The wilful ignorance that's oh so convenient.

I'm all right, jack.

[atheistgod1999]

.

[maximo310]

Man, you crack me up.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

This seems to be an attempt to combat your perceived 'hatred' of you on this forum by being chummy with anti-SJW people here.

A. There is lots of evidence that I'm hated on here, but I'll keep it simple: if I weren't hated, I'd probably be allowed on the #shmups IRC.

B. Virtually everyone else here is "anti-SJW", including system11 himself:

Don't fall for bait like this

[BulletMagnet]

As much as I'd love for people to stop getting upset about bait and instead ridicule it from a distance or something, if one guy bites it, others who kept ignoring it will follow once the bait keeps getting cast as they conclude that ignoring something isn't preventing it from repeatedly happening.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be ignoring outright; if there's a provable factual error or omission to be pointed out, by all means point it out, and if the person is willing to have an actual discussion you can progress from there, but if you get an accusatory non-answer or huffy temper tantrum leave it alone. The person's incredulous behavior and lack of any real argument is out there for all to see, you've done enough. Be better than that. Do not feel the need to respond to absolutely everything with I'm onto your SJW plot to drain all our testosterone to fuel your secret death ray, and you'll never get away with it!

[quash]

Figured I'd check out this thread in light of Milo being banned from Twitter. The guy is a supreme attention whore and has been denied his most useful platform of self promotion.

No one is going to look that shit up. No one cares what happens at your high school.

Schooling is quite literally indoctrination. You can and should be concerned about what's going on in high schools and colleges in particular. Obviously one perspective is but a small part of the big picture, but to discredit it on that basis alone is, strangely enough, short-sighted.

I understand it's difficult to look beyond your own little world at this point, we were all young once. However, these issues take place at your school, in your life. If you don't like it, deal with it there, not here.

I agree. Especially if you have any amount of support amongst your peers, bring this kind of thing to the attention of school staff.

This seems to be an attempt to combat your perceived 'hatred' of you on this forum by being chummy with anti-SJW people here.
I'm sure quash and chums would gladly welcome you into their ranks.

Who are my "chums"? I know only a few people here outside of this forum and we rarely talk, and only one of them shares views even remotely in line with my own.

And I could not care less about my "reputation", here or anywhere else. I simply enjoy the format of forums because it allows for a direct line of discussion.

Learn the difference between real societal issues and what some cunt on the internet is saying about a female costume in a video game.

Maybe that cunt on the internet should learn the difference between actually changing things and being a useful idiot who harps on things of little importance.

Maybe there's some truth in a statement like 'minorities are oppressed.'

Not if you look at it from any kind of honest, pragmatic perspective.

Had black people not been brought to America, there wouldn't be nearly as many world famous black actors, athletes, doctors, etc. as there are today.

Hispanics coming to the US may very well be considered lower class by US standards, but it sure as hell beats being lower class by virtually any other standard.

The list goes on. All of this reactive attitude towards the West (and most specifically, America) is completely grounded in self loathing. This is not just true of poor people, but rich people, as well; hell hath no fury like that of the entitled who feel they've been wronged.

But eh, i'm white middle class, I couldn't possibly be allowed to comment on these things..

Awesome self censorship. Way to refute your own arguments while supporting mine. The machines have gotten to your brain, it seems.

Equating everything you call "sjw" issues to each other, dismissing them all outright is the mark of the conservative keyboard warrior. The wilful ignorance that's oh so convenient.

"Keyboard warrior" lol. Coming from someone I can smell the stench of unwashed hair from all the way in Japan.

I somehow doubt you'd be as flippantly dismissive if he were complaining about, say, intelligent design being taught at his school. Because that's the kind of thing that stifles critical thinking, not being told you were born with the original sin of being the cause of all the world's problems.

[MathU]

You nascent republican you.

Equating everything you call "sjw" issues to each other, dismissing them all outright is the mark of the conservative keyboard warrior.

Conservative is not the only flavor of tribal identarian attitudes. It is just as much a problem with plenty of Americans who describe themselves as liberal or progressive. Failure to engage with an ideological opponent--opting to call them racist, sexist, bigoted, privileged and thus not worth listening to, etc. and dismiss them outright--is exactly what helps the Right win and undermines genuine Leftist politics at every turn.


In other news, one of the co-stars of that awful Ghostbusters reboot had a Twitter meltdown and somehow they're trying to pin it on GamerGate. I guess it's still not dead after all!

[Squire Grooktook]

This is going nowhere.

I think we need to discuss something that's actually important.

So what's you're favorite hentai tags

Mine are:

tomboy
small breasts
yuri
paladin
hand holding
cuddling
genderbender (male to catgirl)
consensual tentacles
visualshock
speedshock
soundshock
now is the time to the 68000 hearts on fire
milf

[cave hermit]

*snip snip*

[Blinge]

No one is going to look that shit up. No one cares what happens at your high school.

Schooling is quite literally indoctrination. You can and should be concerned about what's going on in high schools and colleges in particular. Obviously one perspective is but a small part of the big picture, but to discredit it on that basis alone is, strangely enough, short-sighted.

Oh I am concerned, just not through the filter of ag99's personal experiences. I remember well my conservative indoctrination, but it varied from teacher to teacher. History lessons were the ones that most encouraged us to think critically and come to our own conclusions. At least they used to be like that until the last education secretary here decided to overhaul the curriculum to 'fact based history'.

Looking at the US from here, it seems the damage was done long ago. Just look at your republican candidate haha. I've no interest in wading into that discussion though, it's enough to see you get trounced repeatedly by bulletmagnet.

Who are my "chums"?

me!

Maybe that cunt on the internet should learn the difference between actually changing things and being a useful idiot who harps on things of little importance.

Well, yes. This the problem with gamergate and what it is supposedly reacting to.

Maybe there's some truth in a statement like 'minorities are oppressed.'

Not if you look at it from any kind of honest, pragmatic perspective.

Had black people not been brought to America, there wouldn't be nearly as many world famous black actors, athletes, doctors, etc. as there are today.

Well there you have it folks. There's 0 truth to the statement 'minorities are oppressed.' Not worth wondering where that sentiment may come from. Quash has you covered, there's no need to think about it.
Someone got choked to death in the street? Disproportionate police violence against your people? No consequences or reform? Don't worry cause some of you can be athletes and actors.

The list goes on. All of this reactive attitude towards the West (and most specifically, America) is completely grounded in self loathing. This is not just true of poor people, but rich people, as well; hell hath no fury like that of the entitled who feel they've been wronged.

Alright Milo. What utter bollocks. This idea that any kind of concern for others = hatred of the self sums you and yours up entirely.

But eh, i'm white middle class, I couldn't possibly be allowed to comment on these things..

Awesome self censorship. Way to refute your own arguments while supporting mine. The machines have gotten to your brain, it seems.

It's Sarcasm, dude..

Conservative is not the only flavor of tribal identarian attitudes. It is just as much a problem with plenty of Americans who describe themselves as liberal or progressive. Failure to engage with an ideological opponent--opting to call them racist, sexist, bigoted, privileged and thus not worth listening to, etc. and dismiss them outright--is exactly what helps the Right win and undermines genuine Leftist politics at every turn.

Of course man - However I was responding to someone who equated what's actually occurring in the world now with a high school student talking about Scooby Doo, as the same 'bullshit'

[Durandal]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... pe-verdict

Gawker Media, which went into Chapter 11 to avoid paying a $140 million invasion-of-privacy verdict to Hulk Hogan, can’t extend the bankruptcy court’s protection to its founder, Nick Denton, likely triggering his own personal bankruptcy.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein Tuesday denied the request after a hearing in Manhattan. Denton, who started the online news and gossip company in his apartment in 2002, testified about how important he is to the health of the business. He also described the threat he perceives from Peter Thiel, the tech mogul who bankrolled Hogan’s case.

“As has been reported, the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel has been funding a series of lawsuits against the company intended to deter critical coverage,” Denton testified. “It’s been a drain on the company’s energy and financial resources.”

Denton told the judge he would file for personal bankruptcy if he didn’t get the protection, and that he expected such a proceeding would be expensive given how other cases against Gawker have gone. The media company has already spent $13 million defending the Hogan suit, Denton said.

“I expect my own personal bankruptcy will be anything but straightforward,” he told the judge.

Denton testified Tuesday that a personal bankruptcy could disrupt Gawker’s plan to sell itself in an August auction, in which he would play a role marketing the company. Lead bidder Ziff Davis has agreed to bid $90 million and keep Denton on if it wins the auction.

“I’m the founder of the company,” he said, when asked whether Gawker could survive without him. “I founded it out of my apartment and I know where all the bodies are buried.”

He testified that 15 parties have signed nondisclosure agreements -- a sign of serious interest -- since the Ziff Davis offer was announced and that he expects active bidding.

Denton is leading the effort to find a buyer, Gawker’s president and general counsel, Heather Dietrick, told the court.

“He knows the industry better than anyone in the company,” she said.

Gawker’s lawyers argued that if Denton is forced into personal bankruptcy, he wouldn’t be able to ensure that the auction raises the maximum amount possible.

But Bernstein said Tuesday that if Denton files bankruptcy to protect himself from more legal attacks, he would still be able to help Gawker reorganize.

Hogan sued Gawker and Denton in Florida after the site published excerpts from a sex tape featuring the former pro wrestler. The jury found for Hogan, prompting Gawker to enter bankruptcy in June.

Public policy interests are also at stake, Gawker’s lawyers had argued in court papers.

According to Gawker, Thiel has had it in for the company since 2007, when it outed him as gay. Thiel, who co-founded PayPal, has since publicly acknowledged that he’s gay and called Gawker’s now-defunct blog Valleywag the “Silicon Valley equivalent of al-Qaeda.” In a New York Times interview, he described his backing of Hogan and other litigants as a philanthropic way to help those who can’t afford to defend themselves against press attacks and intrusions.

Blocking the lawsuits against Denton would “temporarily prevent a billionaire with a personal vendetta from using the legal system to further his campaign against the debtors and their employees,” Gawker said in a court filing.

Hogan’s lawyers argued against the relief, saying Denton isn’t running day-to-day operations at Gawker and isn’t instrumental to the business. They cited the numerous professionals hired to guide the company through bankruptcy while Denton is “spending his time blogging, Tweeting, and providing interviews.”

Gawker countered that Denton is working “triple duty” marketing the business and “minimizing the impact of the ongoing campaign to destroy the company and its employees.”

For now, Hogan is unable to collect from Gawker because his claims are temporarily halted during bankruptcy. That gives the company time to appeal the verdict while arranging a sale. If Gawker loses on appeal, sale proceeds would go to creditors -- including Hogan.

In a statement after the judge announced his decision, Denton said he remained focused on the sale.

“As I’ve said, Peter Thiel’s vendetta against my company may well require me as well as the company to file for bankruptcy protection until the Florida appeals court can rule on the extraordinary $140 million judgment,” he said. “This story will conclude with Gawker Media’s popular brands sheltered under new ownership and the importance of a free and critical press reaffirmed by the courts.”

The case is In re Gawker Media LLC, 16-11700, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

In short, Nick Denton, founder of Gawker Media, has nowhere to run and will have to file personal bankruptcy soon. The company is still looking for a new buyer and will most likely go belly up without one.

Figured I'd check out this thread in light of Milo being banned from Twitter. The guy is a supreme attention whore and has been denied his most useful platform of self promotion.

Again? They'll probably reinstate it again after people consider it another example of Twitter's anti-conservative bias, though I think his ban had more to do with his comments on the Nice truck attack.

[quash]

Just look at your republican candidate haha. I've no interest in wading into that discussion though, it's enough to see you get trounced repeatedly by bulletmagnet.

If presenting meme arguments and weak rationalizations constitutes a "trouncing", then sure. Even other, decidedly left leaning posters here have been able to see through the worst of it.

Still, I agree you should steer clear of that, as I have the Brexit thread. Without being able to directly assess the effects of changes in policy, it is very difficult to have a comprehensive view of it.

me!

Is this the weakest backpedal in history or what? If you don't have even the slightest clue as to who I talk to here outside of the forum, why bother bringing it up? I'm not the one name-dropping people I don't know in threads they have yet to participate in.

Well, yes. This the problem with gamergate and what it is supposedly reacting to.

The one good thing to come out of GamerGate is that it served as a model for a larger, all encompassing culture war.

Of course, that's not to say that it was productive in winning that war. Forums like this serve as the alternative to a heavily filtered, blatantly paid off gaming media that has manipulated public opinion for decades, yet most of the people here are incapable of seeing this same pattern on a larger scale. I think that's the only truly frustrating thing about posting here: how people choose to ignore that which they understand because it makes them uncomfortable.

Well there you have it folks. There's 0 truth to the statement 'minorities are oppressed.' Not worth wondering where that sentiment may come from. Quash has you covered, there's no need to think about it.
Someone got choked to death in the street? Disproportionate police violence against your people? No consequences or reform? Don't worry cause some of you can be athletes and actors.

It's not just that they can be athletes and actors and doctors, it's that they aren't living in Africa and are afforded first world luxuries at every point in their life. I simply used those examples to point out that the ceiling for success is quite high.

To be "oppressed" in America is still undeniably better than actually being oppressed in Africa (where the majority of modern day slavery occurs, for the record).

Alright Milo. What utter bollocks. This idea that any kind of concern for others = hatred of the self sums you and yours up entirely.

Not what I'm saying dude lol. I am saying that this particular strain of pathological altruism is self destructive and that people are taking advantage of it.

What is it with you and trying to "sum up" my views for me? If I feel like doing that, I'll do it myself.

[Bananamatic]

I have no idea how people can come to a conclusion what was disproportionate police violence when they haven't been at the scene themselves, especially in a gun loving country like america where the cops are much more likely to shit themselves when the person suddenly starts reaching god knows where

how do you even change laws according to that, cops can only shoot once they get shot themselves?
i'd say ban guns but there are too damn many for that now

[Blinge]

If presenting meme arguments and weak rationalizations constitutes a "trouncing", then sure. Even other, decidedly left leaning posters here have been able to see through the worst of it.

Ah the ol' quash special. "your arguments are just memes!"

me!

Is this the weakest backpedal in history or what? If you don't have even the slightest clue as to who I talk to here outside of the forum, why bother bringing it up? I'm not the one name-dropping people I don't know in threads they have yet to participate in.

lmao backpeddling? dude what are you on about. I don't care who you talk to outside of the forum. Though I assume it's no one who isn't payed.

It's not just that they can be athletes and actors and doctors, it's that they aren't living in Africa and are afforded first world luxuries at every point in their life.

To be "oppressed" in America is still undeniably better than actually being oppressed in Africa (where the majority of modern day slavery occurs, for the record).

There's that wilful ignorance I mentioned earlier.
It's also an incredibly weak response. Your point was that minorities in US aren't oppressed. Now you've moved to
"well at least they aren't oppressed like being oppressed in Africa."

While ag1999 dismissed it as SJW bullshit, I would argue that the statement "minorities are oppressed" contains some truth and merits discussion, yes even in high schools. Shock horror!

I am saying that this particular strain of pathological altruism is self destructive and that people are taking advantage of it.

What is it with you and trying to "sum up" my views for me? If I feel like doing that, I'll do it myself.

Yeah, you're doing a fine job summing yourself up with lines like 'pathological altruism.'

[quash]

Ah the ol' quash special. "your arguments are just memes!"

Claiming that black people are disproportionately victims of police brutality is a meme argument: it sprung up from seemingly nowhere (primarily through media shilling) and is only supported by half of the data. Black people are proportionately more prone to be victims of police violence, but they're also, proportionately speaking and overall, the most likely to commit violent crime. The two are inexplicably related and no amount of claiming otherwise is going to change it. If you don't commit a crime, you're less likely to have to deal with the cops.

Now of course there are racist cops, but how many clear cut cases of racism fueled police brutality have BLM railed against? Michael Brown robbed a convenience store and attempted to assault a police officer. The entire narrative surrounding that story was a lie, though it wasn't admitted until the false picture of what happened that day had already been firmly planted into our heads.

If anything, BLM has a bad habit of being the most vocal over the cases where the suspect was clearly guilty. The guy who was shot in the passenger seat of his car actually didn't do anything wrong, and yet it wasn't given anywhere near the coverage as the other shootings that occurred around the same time.

There's that wilful ignorance I mentioned earlier.
It's also an incredibly weak response. Your point was that minorities in US aren't oppressed. Now you've moved to
"well at least they aren't oppressed like being oppressed in Africa."

I am literally saying the same thing lol. If the US is so bad for people who aren't white, why the fuck do they keep moving there? The sentiment that the US is somehow actively lowering the status of non-white people doesn't pass the most basic of sniff tests.

If anything, the erosion of the predominately white middle class, combined with the ever increasing costs of childcare and unchecked immigration is actively lowering the status of white people in the US.

On the other hand, why is it that the empty threat of choice among supposedly enlightened liberals is to move to Canada if the wrong president gets elected? I guess moving to a country with an even higher concentration of white people proves that you aren't racist, as long as you do it in vocal opposition of Trump.

While ag1999 dismissed it as SJW bullshit, I would argue that the statement "minorities are oppressed" contains some truth and merits discussion, yes even in high schools. Shock horror!

To which I say bullshit. There are plenty of minority groups that come to the US and do incredibly well (including black immigrants from Africa), in large part because they build support networks for themselves and don't promote thug culture among their youth. Having money also helps, though I have seen plenty of exchange students piss away dad's money on a degree and have nothing to show for it later, so it definitely isn't everything.

Yeah, you're doing a fine job summing yourself up with lines like 'pathological altruism.'

What the fuck are you even trying to say here dude? If you have a point to make, make it. You are really bad at rhetoric so don't even try.

[Mischief Maker]

You guys are lucky to have graduated before SJWs took over. I'm spoonfed their bullshit at school constantly at things like assemblies on how minorities, bisexuals, etc. are oppressed.

I remember when I was a teenager and knew everything about the world. Then I grew up and experienced life and the more I learned, the less I knew.

It's a yearly thing to have a schoolwide sophomore speech contest. There's an assembly where the 5 finalists out of ~500 give their speeches and people vote the winner. This year, 3 were about the following: cops are racist

There are different types and degrees of racism. Of course not all cops are cross-burning klansmen. But the more important issue nowadays is systemic racism.

Listen to this audio, it's only two minutes long.

Now let's put this in proper context. The cop being reprimanded here isn't meeting his arrest quota. We could say for the sake of argument that the supervisor doesn't have a racist bone in his body. The fact of the matter is, if you stop more black people, you're more likely to find people with outstanding warrants (they "pop") and reach your quota. Of course, because you're stopping more black people, you're more likely to, say, find them with a joint on their person, therefore giving them a drug arrest record, therefore ensuring there are more warrants for black people in the system, and the cycle continues. And if you're a law-abiding black person, you're stopped, frisked, pulled over, and otherwise have your life interfered with by police more often than identically-behaving white people by a scale of magnitude more.

No individual cop needs to be racist for the rules of the quota game to have a racist result. Hence systemic racism.

(quotas are not the only form of systemic racism, I'm just using them as one example).

kids' shows are sexist (1969 Scooby-Doo was the example; nothing has changed since 1969),

I haven't seen Scooby Doo in forever, but my niece came over to visit a while ago and was watching daytime cartoon network and it had an old episode of the Flintstones playing (another Hanna-Barbera cartoon). It was shockingly sexist in ways I never noticed as a little kid. It was awful to the point I felt compelled to talk with my niece about how she should not apply lessons from that frigging show to real life. If you've got classmates who grew up watching that kind of programming coming to the realization that the values exemplified by that programming should be rejected, however awkwardly and stumbling their teenage articulation, I say that's a good thing.

and commercials are sexist (laxative and yogurt ads typically star men and women respectively).

I don't watch commercials if I can help it. But I don't see how anyone can say sexism is a thing of the past while Roger Ailes goes down Bill Cosby-style. This was the man who built Fox News, the most powerful man in right-wing media for decades. A man who literally shaped political thought for a generation of conservatives. People joked for years about Fox News' upskirt cams for its female anchors. Turns out the man that came up with that concept also behaved horribly to his female employees. Depending on how many of the allegations you believe, he's done everything from disallowing female anchors from wearing pants, to demanding sexual favors for prime spots (and using his influence to wreck the careers of female conservatives who rejected him), to dropping his pants and chasing teenaged models around his office.

And don't fool yourself into thinking Roger Ailes is the one bad apple in an otherwise perfectly egalitarian uber-liberal entertainment business. When people talk about the "casting couch" they're not talking about a normal audition. Folks always wonder why beautiful girls go to Hollywood and become rich and famous movie stars, then descend into booze and pills. Does fame alone make you crazy? Or did some horrible old man in a position of power like Ailes corner her into a choice of abandoning her dream or doing something repugnant? Is it really a coincidence that so many politically active actresses are so stridently feminist?



You've been rending your garments for the past several weeks about how you're a dumb kid who doesn't know how to conduct himself on an internet forum. Did some of your high school sophomore classmates write vapid speeches? Maybe you should cut them the same kind of slack we're cutting you.

[Durandal]

It's a yearly thing to have a schoolwide sophomore speech contest. There's an assembly where the 5 finalists out of ~500 give their speeches and people vote the winner. This year, 3 were about the following: cops are racist

There are different types and degrees of racism. Of course not all cops are cross-burning klansmen. But the more important issue nowadays is systemic racism.

Listen to this audio, it's only two minutes long.

Now let's put this in proper context. The cop being reprimanded here isn't meeting his arrest quota. We could say for the sake of argument that the supervisor doesn't have a racist bone in his body. The fact of the matter is, if you stop more black people, you're more likely to find people with outstanding warrants (they "pop") and reach your quota. Of course, because you're stopping more black people, you're more likely to, say, find them with a joint on their person, therefore giving them a drug arrest record, therefore ensuring there are more warrants for black people in the system, and the cycle continues. And if you're a law-abiding black person, you're stopped, frisked, pulled over, and otherwise have your life interfered with by police more often than identically-behaving white people by a scale of magnitude more.

No individual cop needs to be racist for the rules of the quota game to have a racist result. Hence systemic racism.

That does raise an interesting question: how a police officer should avoid unintentionally contributing to the systemic racism when dealing with minorities who are statistically more likely to commit crimes.
It's easy to say that you should treat everyone equally, but it never is in practice. Especially when distrust against the police amongst blacks is growing, and now they are more than ever likely to act rebellious rather than compliant when being searched by police. When a cop asks you to pull over, the last thing you want to do is act suspicious in front of someone with a gun. Police officers are (AFAIK) not trained to take chances. If they did, they'd be reprimanded for doing their job badly by their supervisors, or just get shot on the spot. Keyword here is compliance, because no cop is eager to create another media scandal, but they do value their own lives and family. Even worse, the very opposite could happen by being more forgiving with minorities than they should.

[Blinge]

If anything, BLM has a bad habit of being the most vocal over the cases where the suspect was clearly guilty. The guy who was shot in the passenger seat of his car actually didn't do anything wrong, and yet it wasn't given anywhere near the coverage as the other shootings that occurred around the same time.

Eh, people run with whatever story generates the most interest in the moment, it's a reactionary movement. Here's the problem though, guilty of what? Crimes that bear the death penalty? No. Is it a police officer's role to be judge, jury and executioner? No. You're supposed to have a court system.
You can't assume every officer is acting in self defence when people like Eric Garner and Walter Scott died for no reason. The cop in the latter case, who shot a fleeing suspect and planted evidence, has actually been charged. This wouldn't have happened without a citizen journalist's presence or the movement. It's no surprise at all that people see a pattern and a movement begins.

But hey: "nope." it's all bullshit, not worth discussing. Don't complain cause it could be worse.

There's that wilful ignorance I mentioned earlier.
It's also an incredibly weak response. Your point was that minorities in US aren't oppressed. Now you've moved to
"well at least they aren't oppressed like being oppressed in Africa."

I am literally saying the same thing lol. If the US is so bad for people who aren't white, why the fuck do they keep moving there?

Wait, so because immigration still happens it means everything is fine and dandy and people shouldn't complain if treated unjustly?

Hell even saying there's worse oppression elsewhere assumes that oppression does occur in the US.
So to our intrepid young highschool debater; maybe it's worth thinking about, like I said. =/

The sentiment that the US is somehow actively lowering the status of non-white people doesn't pass the most basic of sniff tests.

No one said the 'US' is 'actively' doing that. Mischief's post elucidates part of the problem.

On the other hand, why is it that the empty threat of choice among supposedly enlightened liberals is to move to Canada if the wrong president gets elected? I guess moving to a country with an even higher concentration of white people proves that you aren't racist, as long as you do it in vocal opposition of Trump.

weaksauce. You pulled that from your ass and it's nothing to do with this conversation. Why'd you move to Japan anyway, less scary living in a socially conservative place?

While ag1999 dismissed it as SJW bullshit, I would argue that the statement "minorities are oppressed" contains some truth and merits discussion, yes even in high schools. Shock horror!

To which I say bullshit.

I said it merits discussion and you're spending time and effort to discuss it.. so? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are plenty of minority groups that come to the US and do incredibly well (including black immigrants from Africa), in large part because they build support networks for themselves and don't promote thug culture among their youth. Having money also helps, though I have seen plenty of exchange students piss away dad's money on a degree and have nothing to show for it later, so it definitely isn't everything.

No shit having money also helps, the poorest communities in any country have the higher crime rates.
No one has claimed a minority cannot "do well". Nor do I particularly care how you'd define doing well.
Also I like how you're apportioning blame with the thug culture comment. It's nothing new I suppose, the racist first seeks to blame the other.

Yeah, you're doing a fine job summing yourself up with lines like 'pathological altruism.'

What the fuck are you even trying to say here dude? If you have a point to make, make it. You are really bad at rhetoric so don't even try.

Pathological altruism implies that any non-black who doesn't dismiss BLM outright is somehow damaging themselves. I say you're full of shit. It fits entirely with the theme of 'us vs them' that's developing in your discourse.

So just to point out..

Had black people not been brought to America, there wouldn't be nearly as many world famous black actors, athletes, doctors, etc. as there are today.

You're one step away from justifying slavery. I think we're done here.

[quash]

Eh, people run with whatever story generates the most interest in the moment, it's a reactionary movement.

A shining moment of clarity.

Here's the problem though, guilty of what? Crimes that bear the death penalty?

Well, assuming you're against the death penalty in general, your position on this would be pretty clear. Assuming you aren't, the crime of robbing a store doesn't warrant death, but attempting to assault a police officer is the definition of escalation.

No. Is it a police officer's role to be judge, jury and executioner? No. You're supposed to have a court system.

We have one. The Justice Department, headed by a black woman, found the officer in that case acted within the boundaries of the law.

You can't assume every officer is acting in self defence when people like Eric Garner and Walter Scott died for no reason. The cop in the latter case, who shot a fleeing suspect and planted evidence, has actually been charged. This wouldn't have happened without a citizen journalist's presence or the movement. It's no surprise at all that people see a pattern and a movement begins.

What a load of crap. Cops wouldn't be charged if it weren't for media coverage and protests? Cops have repeatedly been exonerated in spite of surrounding hysteria because they acted within the law. And I thought I was the cynical one here.

Now, granted, there's room for improvement in the American police system, but the policing policies need to be changed to fix that.

Wait, so because immigration still happens it means everything is fine and dandy and people shouldn't complain if treated unjustly?

Hell even saying there's worse oppression elsewhere assumes that oppression does occur in the US.

The thing is that "unjust" treatment is relative. As a society, we're in such a good position that our idea of being "oppressed" is being apprehended by the police for committing petty theft.

No one said the 'US' is 'actively' doing that. Mischief's post elucidates part of the problem.

Yet another argument founded on convenient half truths and flawed perspectives on the role of law enforcement. As much as I would like to crack this nut right here, this one is particularly tough and probably warrants a discussion of its own.

weaksauce. You pulled that from your ass and it's nothing to do with this conversation.

It has everything to do with this conversation lol. You only move to another country if you think it can offer you something better than what you currently have.

Why not move to Mexico? Why not move to the Middle East? If you're an open borders activist, you're willing to take on these people's problems at the expense of your own citizens, so why not put your money where your mouth is (quite literally) and see if maybe the "ignorant" people telling you that Mexico is crime ridden and Islam isn't compatible with the West aren't so ignorant after all?

Why'd you move to Japan anyway, less scary living in a socially conservative place?

I'm from the most liberal area of the US. Most of the people I grew up around are spineless shitstains who wouldn't last a minute outside of the safe space of the West. The only thing I fear is that the entirety of the US could become like that.

I came to Japan to do a job that few can do and enjoy myself doing it.

I said it merits discussion and you're spending time and effort to discuss it.. so? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I told you why it doesn't, and you haven't presented anything in response.

Pathological altruism implies that any non-black who doesn't dismiss BLM outright is somehow damaging themselves. I say you're full of shit. It fits entirely with the theme of 'us vs them' that's developing in your discourse.

Even black people who don't dismiss BLM are damaging themselves. Do you really think the elites funding the movement give half a shit about black people?

You're one step away from justifying slavery. I think we're done here.

I actually wish the South had picked its own cotton. It would have removed a source of national weakness, then and now.

[Mischief Maker]

Yet another argument founded on convenient half truths and flawed perspectives on the role of law enforcement. As much as I would like to crack this nut right here, this one is particularly tough and probably warrants a discussion of its own.

Okay.

[Blinge]

Is it a police officer's role to be judge, jury and executioner? No. You're supposed to have a court system.

We have one. The Justice Department, headed by a black woman, found the officer in that case acted within the boundaries of the law.

Yeah, that's one example. I'm talking about the wider trend, hence the reactionary movement, you know; people reacting to something.

What a load of crap. Cops wouldn't be charged if it weren't for media coverage and protests? Cops have repeatedly been exonerated in spite of surrounding hysteria because they acted within the law. And I thought I was the cynical one here.

The whole system is biased towards cops and you'd be a fool to think otherwise. People aren't willing to put their careers on the line by going against the grain.

The phone-recording witness almost didn't come forward because he was scared for his own safety. Supposedly because of police retribution.
It was a BLM activist that facilitated him coming forward.

Now, granted, there's room for improvement in the American police system, but the policing policies need to be changed to fix that.

A shining moment of clarity. There is a problem, and policing policies need to be changed. Funny how BLM brought that to the world's attention and are campaigning for just that.
Actually I've heard some police forces are stepping up their community outreach in light of this and trying to get dialogue going, so..baby steps.

Hell even saying there's worse oppression elsewhere assumes that oppression does occur in the US.

The thing is that "unjust" treatment is relative. As a society, we're in such a good position that our idea of being "oppressed" is being apprehended by the police for committing petty theft.

whoa there buddy, you're slipping again. The problem is extra-judiciary killings with no consequences or reform.
I'm not interested in having purely semantic arguments about the word 'oppression' all day.

why not put your money where your mouth is (quite literally) and see if maybe the "ignorant" people telling you that Mexico is crime ridden and Islam isn't compatible with the West aren't so ignorant after all?

Erm, I don't remember any conversation about what ignorant people say about mexico. Maybe you were talking to someone else?
If something ain't right, people will protest, campaign, try to do something about it regardless of how much worse things could be. If you think that's wrong, well *shrug*.

Were the suffragettes in Britain wrong to protest because women were treated far worse in Islam?

I'm from the most liberal area of the US. Most of the people I grew up around are spineless shitstains who wouldn't last a minute outside of the safe space of the West. The only thing I fear is that the entirety of the US could become like that.

I came to Japan to do a job that few can do and enjoy myself doing it.

Aren't you special. Well say what it is if you're so damn proud. Military?

Even black people who don't dismiss BLM are damaging themselves. Do you really think the elites funding the movement give half a shit about black people?

Make a convincing argument on this, or fuck off. Damaging themselves how?
Also, who you perceive to be leaders do not define a movement. This isn't a corporate structure.

[Durandal]

A strange article, but oddly true: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/milo ... icate.html

Milo Yiannopoulos and the Gay Fascist Sophisticate

On Tuesday, Twitter permanently banned the account of Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) for violating its “hateful conduct policy.” Milo — he goes by just the single name — was busted for trolling Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones. Although the offending tweets were not unusual by the low standards of Twitter (or of Milo himself), this was not the first time that he had gotten in trouble with the company, and by picking a fight with Jones he made her a target of even worse racist abuse from his followers. That’s the official explanation, at least, although it may give Twitter too much credit for having and enforcing a coherent policy.

Milo may have been one of the most “egregious and consistent offenders of [Twitter’s] terms of service,” but he was also one of the social-media platform’s most skilled manipulators. He established himself as a right-wing celebrity by mastering the arts of calculated provocation and self-promotion, developing a particular talent for loudly violating “politically correct” speech taboos in ways maximally calculated to rally the faithful while baiting his liberal and leftist adversaries into hysterics. A sample headline from directly after the Orlando shooting gives an idea of the genre: THE LEFT CHOSE ISLAM OVER GAYS. NOW OVER 100 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR MAIMED IN ORLANDO. Its thrust may be abhorrent, but as a headline it’s brilliant — and it plays well on social media.

Milo is also a number of things that most conservative journalists are not. He knows his memes. He calls Donald Trump “Daddy.” He openly affiliates with the neo-monarchists and open racists of the alt-right, which he depicts as a happy-go-lucky band of internet tricksters out to poke fun at liberal pieties for the lulz. He’s gay, too. Fabulously gay. Not the sort of dignified bourgeois gay that the Republican Party has spent years begrudgingly accommodating itself to; no — Milo is a self-described “based faggot” who flirts with racism even as he tweets about his love of “black cock”; he’s the millenial gay best friend who says the most outrageous things: for instance, that gay liberation was a bad idea and it’s time to get back in the closet. With his legions of online followers and savant’s knowledge of Pepe the Frog memes, Milo seems like a singularly contemporary thinker. Yet he has also revived an older trope, which may be more indicative of our current moment: the decadent, gay, fascist sophisticate.

The subject of the gay fascist is, unsurprisingly, a sensitive one. Real-life fascist regimes mercilessly persecuted homosexuals, and any empirical connection between homosexuality and fascism is tenuous, despite what Christian conspiracy theorists and gay contrarians might have you believe. The gay fascist is a real historical figure — for instance, the French critic Robert Brasillach or the SA leader Ernst Röhm — but, more significantly, it’s a cultural trope, familiar from films such as Luchino Visconti’s The Damned and novels such as Jonathan Littell’s The Kindly Ones. In these works of fiction, the gay fascist, who is generally debonair, witty, and well-read, is meant to stand in for the cultural afflictions of the society that produced him: decadence, cynicism, sadism; the narcissism and aestheticism of over-civilization; the worship of death and the loss of hope in the future (associations all courted by Milo with his Twitter name, Nero).

There’s a sort of deconstruction-by-numbers which holds that the gay fascist trope is indicative of irrational fears of “disordered” sexuality, or else is a way for ordinary people to comfort themselves with the belief that fascists were moral and sexual deviants, rather than what they were: ordinary people. Both those things may well be true. But Milo’s ability to reinvent and inhabit the trope suggests something simpler.

In its contemporary usage, “fascism” designates roughly any political ideology to the right of Joe Scarborough. As any college professor or message-board pedant will tell you, that’s a mistake. As an intellectual movement, fascism defined itself against 19th-century European liberalism — which espoused beliefs that 21st-century American liberals might well regard as fascist. It held (with some exceptions) that men were naturally superior to women, whites were superior to blacks, and Saxons and Teutons superior to Latins and Celts. It regarded democracy with contempt.

The point is not that this liberalism was therefore ‘illiberal.’ Rather, it’s that whatever its considerable flaws, this liberalism was in its heyday the ideology of a successful ruling class that was able to provide ever-increasing prosperity, individual autonomy, and social peace to the nations in which it ruled. Fascism is what came after, when the pointless massacre of the First World War, the economic devastation of the 1930s, and the persistent inability to resolve long-simmering social tensions discredited the European elite and its ideas. Reducing fascism to some vague idea of extreme conservatism, which in its American context essentially means angry old white people, misses the sense in which fascism prospered because it was something young, cool, transgressive, and new. For fascist intellectuals, at least, the liberal bourgeoisie was their enemy as much as were communists or Jews, and it was precisely because the bourgeois were old, self-righteous, and boring. Fascism was sexy and fun.

Milo gets this. He’s not the angry, downwardly mobile Iowan that is still the ideal-typical Trump voter. He’s young, he’s smart, he’s good-looking; his entire identity is a mockery of the family-values conservatism that until recently dominated right-wing politics in America. And he’s mastered the art of the exciting transgression. Bigoted views are bigoted views. But it’s also true that a flailing American elite has elevated a corporate-diversity-training version of multiculturalism into one of the primary justifications for its continued rule. (At one point last fall, I attended a function at Brown University — endowment $3.3 billion — at which the keynote speaker closed with: “I’m a queer black survivor, and I’m going to work at Goldman Sachs next year!” The room exploded.) Milo exploits to great effect the perception among his disaffected, youthful fan base that liberal pieties about diversity and anti-racism are just the moralistic droning of an elite losing its grip on power.

Trump’s success has raised among liberals a fear that the far right has made itself respectable. Milo’s success at creating a following for a figure like himself — limited as it might be — suggests that the bigger fear should be that the far right might make itself cool.

[evil_ash_xero]

I'm a bit behind on this thread. You guys seem to have some debates going on.

I don't have the stomach for it right now. But I am sad that Milo got banned from Twitter. He was one of the more entertaining things on there.

Are you guys talking about Black Lives Matter? I skimmed the last page or so. I think it started from a good place. As in, there are problems with cops being a bit too abusive with black people at times.
However, the media has pushed this to a fever pitch and you'd think there was some kind of massacre going on.
And BLM...even though it had some good points, has turned into a very hateful movement (like almost all SJW movements...claim peace and love but are some of the most close minded and judgemental people you'll ever meet).
Hateful is one thing, but this has now gotten violent. Which I blame on the media and BLM.

Whatever the solution was, it's not this. But just typical results from SJW-like movements. Just with some added death.

That's one thing I have learned from the last couple of years...the far left are more likely to be violent than the far right, at this point.

Bad times.

[Mischief Maker]

Are you guys talking about Black Lives Matter? I skimmed the last page or so. I think it started from a good place. As in, there are problems with cops being a bit too abusive, with black people at times.
However, the media has pushed this to a fever pitch, and you'd think there was some kind of massacre going on.
And BLM...even though it had some good points, has turned into a very hateful movement (like almost all SJW movements...claim peace and love, but are some of the most close minded and judgemental people you'll ever meet).
Hateful is one thing, but this has now gotten violent. Which I blame on the media, and BLM.

Whatever the solution was, it's not this. But just typical results, from SJW-like movements. Just with some added death.

That's one thing I have learned, from the last couple of years...the far left are more likely to be violent, than the far right, at this point.

Bad times.

Gonna reply to this over in the dedicated thread.