GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

What shall we rename this thread? Oppression Olympics II: Operation Tit-for-tat or Let's Help Bulletmagnet With His Reading Comprehension?

^Things I didn't say or imply.

More things I didn't say or imply

Whether I agree with Gavin-senpai or not doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure it was nature that designed men to be more suitable to go down coal mines, not "the patriarchy".


Let's do a thought experiment! Ask a grown-up for help!

Compare a boy and girl born in the west (or anywhere for that matter) today:

Which one is more likely to die at work

Which one is more likely to go to college

Which one is more likely to become a CEO

Which one is more likely to get their bits snipped off

Which one will go on to suffer a lower quality of life because they had their bits snipped off

Which one is more likely to have to avoid uggos on the bus

Which one is more likely to end up being an uggo on the bus

"How it used to be" doesn't enter the equation because I don't believe in original sin. Equal rights and opportunities, not forced equal outcomes.

If you think I'm resurrecting the Stormwatch Shitslide you've got another thing coming, though before slapping this one onto your list I doubt that you so much as considered the notion that "female circumcision" (for whatever it's worth, I can pretty much guarantee you it wasn't a woman who coined that term) 1) Is orders of magnitude harsher upon the subject (if its male "equivalent" can even be accurately compared to it at all), and 2) Is performed for very different, and frankly much more malevolent, reasons. You want to take a stance against the procedure on any grounds I'm not gonna sit here and protest, but ushering it into the "men have it worse" arena? Get fucking serious, dude. Most of the items you posted are a hard sell on "the pendulum's pretty much even" grounds, but this one is easily the dumbest of the entire bunch.

At least you challenged something that I actually said though. Well done! Of course FGM is more the more barbaric and harmful practice, jesus fuck. I was talking about likelihoods, see above.

[BulletMagnet]

I was talking about likelihoods, see above.

Methinks this gets to the core of the endless round-and-round happening here; you've made it quite clear that you have no intention whatsoever of factoring in how or why the "likelihoods" you've repeated several times now are what they are (and thus the underlying reasons you feel justified in saying the things you say at all; that's immaterial, apparently), because somehow attempting to dig into the hard numbers anywhere beyond "this is what they currently are" automatically means you're in favor of "forced outcomes" (how, I have no earthly idea) - of course, if you don't see the "how" and "why" of our current situation as the entire point of even discussing these matters and are willing to act as if posting the same context-adverse factoids ad nauseam - and mocking as functionally illiterate anyone who doesn't take them as "proof" in and of themselves that there's nothing more to say - again, I have no idea what to tell you.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

because somehow attempting to dig into the hard numbers anywhere beyond "this is what they currently are" automatically means you're in favor of "forced outcomes" (how, I have no earthly idea)

I'm as baffled as you are.

[BulletMagnet]

Whether I agree with Gavin-senpai or not doesn't matter. [...] "How it used to be" doesn't enter the equation because I don't believe in original sin. Equal rights and opportunities, not forced equal outcomes.

I have no idea how to interpret this stuff outside of "I refuse to consider or discuss the underlying/historical factors behind either our current situation or the related raw statistics I cite, because doing so would (somehow) go beyond the goal of 'equality' into 'forced outcomes' territory." What exactly am I overlooking here?

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

^That historical grievances (how it used to be) can be used to "justify" further inequalities i.e. - 100 years ago, men wouldn't let women vote therefore it doesn't matter if men disproportionately commit suicide today. "Original sin".

As for the 'hows' and 'whys' - you're welcome to do the work yourself. I can't see how digging into hard numbers will make the facts I listed become 'untrue'. Facts which, by the way, aren't 'context-adverse' - they were posted as a counter to your assertion that "every measurable data point we have shows that we live in a male-dominated society" (without proof, I might add surprise surprise). My facts aren't just easily googled - I'd be very surprised if anyone's own life experiences didn't show them to be true.

There's some nice articles about evolutionary psychology/biology out there that go some way into explaining how gender roles came to be as they were and how women are less likely to compete at high levels in the workplace and why more men commit suicide. I'm not really an expert. Here's a nice starting point that's probably been shared before.

Or are you a proponent of the "blank slate" .

[BulletMagnet]

^That historical grievances (how it used to be) can be used to "justify" further inequalities i.e. - 100 years ago, men wouldn't let women vote therefore it doesn't matter if men disproportionately commit suicide today. "Original sin".

...what, what? Who the fuck says that?

As you say, the numbers are what they are, and I really doubt that anyone would reasonably assert that stuff like the suicide statistic "doesn't matter" - however, deigning to bring "how" and "why" into the equation, while it may - and this is what the "men's rights" crowd seems to dread - add context to the raw statistics and thus suggest that not every grievance is directly comparable to every other (seriously, how is one supposed to meaningfully "compare", let alone equate, voting rights with suicide, a century or more in time apart at that?), does not mean that anyone who insists that context does matter intends to maliciously "minimize" the disadvantages males face, or is seeking some sort of ill-conceived "revenge" for past or lingering injustices (which makes particularly little sense in my own case, since I'm, y'know, male ).

Brace yourself, but however you slice it, hopefully you can agree that not all injustices come about in the same way, are equally ingrained into the public consciousness, affect life equally drastically, or require the same manner of solution or sense of urgency to address; heck, the "list" I posted is just as easily googled as yours (but somehow only mine was submitted "without proof"), so help yourself if you're genuinely curious (though you might want to ditch the Zen-level parsimonious gorilla dust beforehand). More to the point, insisting that any cobbled-together list of Bad Things must, it would seem, merit precisely the same amount of attention, and degree of reaction, as any other - time, place, or circumstances be damned - else battle cries of "Kool-Aid" ring through the air, well, frankly I can't think of a more "forced outcome" than that.

Do all such inequities merit attention? Certainly (unless you're on Team Gavin, anyway), and if you or anyone else feels that some portion or other is being swept unfairly under the rug, by all means present your argument to that end (or, hell, do some volunteer work to that end or something) - however, presenting any and all discrepancies not to your liking as inalienable proof that you're getting the short shrift courtesy of a shifty cabal of deliberate, bad-faith actors who must be actively and aggressively resisted to the point of see-no-evil association with some highly inadvisable acquaintances, reeks of not only an underlying lack of confidence in one's stated convictions but, dare I say it, entitlement.

Or are you a proponent of the "blank slate" .

Assuming you refer to the notion that nature doesn't matter and nurture is everything, no. Chances are, though, that I do view the balance as far less extremely and/or inextricably tilted in a particular direction than you might.

[Squire Grooktook]

Give this thread back to BIL.

[Ko.oS]

Give this thread back to BIL.

give Squire some homeschooling.

oh wait.

Spoiler

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

^That historical grievances (how it used to be) can be used to "justify" further inequalities i.e. - 100 years ago, men wouldn't let women vote therefore it doesn't matter if men disproportionately commit suicide today. "Original sin".

...what, what? Who the fuck says that?

Idiots. That's why I don't believe in it. You've also adequately described the futility of tit-for-tat.

(but somehow only mine was submitted "without proof")

Hold on, read your own words:

posting the same context-adverse factoids ad nauseam - and mocking as functionally illiterate anyone who doesn't take them as "proof"

Clearly the burden is on me to provide "proof" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

however, presenting any and all discrepancies not to your liking as inalienable proof that you're getting the short shrift courtesy of a shifty cabal of deliberate, bad-faith actors who must be actively and aggressively resisted to the point of see-no-evil association with some highly inadvisable acquaintances, reeks of not only an underlying lack of confidence in one's stated convictions but, dare I say it, entitlement.]

Seems to imply I've said something beyond "Men have problems too, bro." Nowhere have I implied men have it worse. I'm not the only person who has noticed you misrepresenting my words repeatedly for the last couple of pages.

The implication that grievances should be arranged into some sort of "privilege stack" of urgency doesn't sit very well with me. But - if we were to do so (and get back on topic) where do you think Mean Tweets and Animu Titties would fall in the grand scheme of things?

[Zen]

You move ever onward towards Jabberwocky, BulletMagnet.

I'm going to have to hold up your Snark Hunt to reestablish the following .

1. Is your position that women were/are being held down/back/? (i.e. "the Patriarchy")
2. That (classical) Feminism's purpose was/is to right this wrong?
3.To that end, do you propose/agree with quota's/forced outcome?

Assuming you refer to the notion that nature doesn't matter and nurture is everything, no. Chances are, though, that I do view the balance as far less extremely and/or inextricably tilted in a particular direction than you might.

Where and how, do you personally draw that line. It would seem that your views in general, would necessitate that you weigh the balance more on side of nurture.

[mycophobia]

Give this thread back to BIL.

bil should just continue making great posts about video games rather than whatever it was he was doing in here.

periodic reminder that the very existence of this thread is harmful to the forums and should be deleted

[Squire Grooktook]

Give this thread back to BIL.

bil should just continue making great posts about video games rather than whatever it was he was doing in here.

periodic reminder that the very existence of this thread is harmful to the forums and should be deleted

Nah his commandeering of this thread to harmlessly poke fun at internet weirdos was great fun. Loved seeing a bump to this thread when he was behind it.

[BIL]

I don't know what it is you chaps have heard, but my duties as OFFICIAL GiantSpaceKat liaison are very much ongoing. We've just been approved for the next season of Wu World ("Mr. Flynt Goes To Washington"), look for it in late autumn!

SUPER NWS / TV-MA

Spoiler

I need to make a new title bumper, ain't had the time. :[

bil should just continue making great posts about video games rather than whatever it was he was doing in here.

Man's gotta eat. How do you think I afford all those videogames I make great posts about?

[Steamflogger Boss]

periodic reminder that the very existence of this thread is harmful to the forums and should be deleted

Periodic reminder that locking threads because they annoy someone is a bad idea. Additional reminder that anyone that opens this thread is choosing to do so.

We really don't want to go down that path but given that a staff member is involved in the "discussions" I think we are safe from that kind of bs.

[Skykid]

Bulletmagnet, indulge me - I'm curious as to where your insight actually comes from. Be aware I'm not singling you out, I tend to ask everyone with the same social-political views as yourself the same question. I'm rarely, if ever, presented with tangible evidence for the argument, even though that's what I would really require to shift my position.

To follow in the footsteps of Howard Lincoln, if western women are really oppressed by a patriarchy, prove it.

[Bananamatic]

to this day I still don't understand what bulletmagnet's position actually is

[Ko.oS]

to this day I still don't understand what his position actually is

its not complicated -- BM's position is:

Spoiler

groovymame > shmupmame

i wouldnt mind seeing the other BM post in this thread again, btw..


(NSFW)

Spoiler

[BIL]

Are you suggesting BulletMagnet has a secret Republican alter ego, ala John Walker Flynt / Brianna Wu?

[Durandal]

to this day I still don't understand what bulletmagnet's position actually is

The position is the thing, and the true position is the true thing. To speak the position is to control the thing.

[Skykid]

SUPER NWS / TV-MA

Spoiler

Can't stop looking at this. So freaky. I see something new every time (giant members). Did you make this masterpiece from the Westworld intro?

[BIL]

Did you make this masterpiece from the Westworld intro?

I like to consider it a subtle commentary on artistic iteration - analogous to Wu's homages of struggling author/illustrator John Walker Flynt ("Socially Unconscious" "Election Eve"), in the Woman Friendly™ typing tutorial with which she earned her fame.

As an aside - although it's a shame her inspiration never achieved the same level of recognition, I suspect it may have been for the best. Flynt's art and prose has a faint but persistent whiff of the voyeur to it ("Buffalo Bill" as the pop-cultural shorthand goes).

Carmet was having fun too, because all these guys were walking around with obvious erections around her. Youth ministers weren’t the smoothest guys in the world at flirting.

A lot of the girls used the field to burning off the frustration of attending an all girl’s school. They would pull the tee-shirts back in knots, showing off all the dimension they had. Brea and Allison and their third laughed at girls like that because as Brea’s grandmother had told her “we’re the ones with the pussies, let them do some of the work.”

Nothing like my employer's delightful examinations of lycra'd buns of steel and SEAL-issue miniskirts. I wonder where Flynt disappeared to!

[BulletMagnet]

Idiots. That's why I don't believe in it.

Dude, repeat after me: Nobody says that. Nobody says that, and acting like anyone does say that is either disingenuous or outright insane. Mind you, I guarantee that at least one person on here is now furiously scanning blogs and YouTube videos with single-digit viewerships for a hit-count-seeking (and, apparently, successful to that end) nutcase to "prove" that I'm only here to gaslight you, but if that's supposed to hold any water on your end, well, see my diagnosis earlier in this paragraph.

Clearly the burden is on me to provide "proof" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...what the ever-loving fuck are you on about? I list a handful of ways off the cuff in which women "have it worse" than men, without elaboration; in your reply you do the exact same thing (albeit, again, without bothering to screen for even minimal equivalence), I point out inherent shortcoming with a few of those items (which, offhand, I don't believe you ever bothered to do with my examples), and am suddenly called out for having not provided "proof" for my shortlist, "surprise surprise", and moreover for having unreasonably demanded "proof" from you (where, I'd love to know) without having provided the same myself. It's like a game of freaking chutes and ladders. On that note...

To follow in the footsteps of Howard Lincoln, if western women are really oppressed by a patriarchy, prove it.

If you think I'm either formally-educated or, frankly, motivated enough to build you an airtight case for some manner of "feminist" (or whatever the hell you want to call it) approach to our society, I'm afraid you've got another thing coming: as I'd said earlier, however, if any of the mavericks on here want to take an honest look at the centuries of near-absolute patriarchy that lead up to the present, and cook up an argument that either "it really wasn't that bad for women (or "feminized" men)", and/or that by this point in time any such lingering injustices have been addressed more than enough, and thus remaining calls to rethink the state of gender relations should be dismissively filed under "Horton hears a Wu", I can guarantee that your post will be infinitely more fascinating than anything I could ever present.

The implication that grievances should be arranged into some sort of "privilege stack" of urgency doesn't sit very well with me.

It's not a matter of "privilege stacking", it's dealing with the reality that not everything can be magically solved at once, and that deciding which one to address at a given time shouldn't be a completely arbitrary process; the alternative, which, not coincidentally, seems to pop its head up with some frequency among "social justice" critics, is to smugly sigh "well, if we can't do this fairly, no reason to even try anything at all, just let the chips fall where they may, not my problem". It's like obsessing over the details of the avant-garde "intact foreskin" wallpaper motif for the den of a house you're planning to build, then scuttling the entire project in a huff when someone points out you haven't even figured out the dimensions of the foundation yet.

But - if we were to do so (and get back on topic) where do you think Mean Tweets and Animu Titties would fall in the grand scheme of things?

See, when you call me out for "suggesting anyone is implying something beyond 'men also have problems'", this is the implication I'm talking about.

Anyway, considering that my most recent gaming purchases were Yakuza 6 and Gal Gun 2 I am fairly secure in saying that that sort of thing isn't an over-arching concern to me personally - at the same time, however, I also do not believe that anyone who criticizes such things must be trying to take them away from me, nor do I assert that my right to enjoy things others may find "objectionable" means that I have no obligation to take anyone else's right to not have those things shoved in their faces into consideration, let alone treat them with any less common courtesy than I'd offer anyone else, nor that doing so makes me a "slave to political correctness". TLDR: Nobody is "under assault", especially not to the extent that they can't do what they want without being an obnoxious asshole about it. Chill.

You move ever onward towards Jabberwocky, BulletMagnet.

Well well, look who's come slithering back out of the woodwork. You want to waste any more of my time, address my criticisms of your abjectly self-defeating "stance" from back on page 63, rather than unilaterally ignoring the ongoing dialogue for a week, allowing the water to muddy itself up and then poking your nose back above the surface in hopes that everyone's forgotten about it. If you think anything resembling a "discussion" can happen when one "participant" feels free to hit the magic reset button whenever it's convenient and everyone else should feel obligated to meekly follow his lead without question, you're even less worth paying any attention to than was already immensely evident.

to this day I still don't understand what bulletmagnet's position actually is

At this point I'm honestly not even sure what manner of lifeform you are.

[Bananamatic]

"it really wasn't that bad for women (or "feminized" men)"

reminder that feminine, passive men are still perceived as the lowest form of human life
especially by women
and considering they are 100% of the elliot rodger demographic, probably for a reason

[Zen]

Spoiler

Idiots. That's why I don't believe in it.

Dude, repeat after me: Nobody says that. Nobody says that, and acting like anyone does say that is either disingenuous or outright insane. Mind you, I guarantee that at least one person on here is now furiously scanning blogs and YouTube videos with single-digit viewerships for a hit-count-seeking (and, apparently, successful to that end) nutcase to "prove" that I'm only here to gaslight you, but if that's supposed to hold any water on your end, well, see my diagnosis earlier in this paragraph.

Clearly the burden is on me to provide "proof" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...what the ever-loving fuck are you on about? I list a handful of ways off the cuff in which women "have it worse" than men, without elaboration; in your reply you do the exact same thing (albeit, again, without bothering to screen for even minimal equivalence), I point out inherent shortcoming with a few of those items (which, offhand, I don't believe you ever bothered to do with my examples), and am suddenly called out for having not provided "proof" for my shortlist, "surprise surprise", and moreover for having unreasonably demanded "proof" from you (where, I'd love to know) without having provided the same myself. It's like a game of freaking chutes and ladders. On that note...

To follow in the footsteps of Howard Lincoln, if western women are really oppressed by a patriarchy, prove it.

If you think I'm either formally-educated or, frankly, motivated enough to build you an airtight case for some manner of "feminist" (or whatever the hell you want to call it) approach to our society, I'm afraid you've got another thing coming: as I'd said earlier, however, if any of the mavericks on here want to take an honest look at the centuries of near-absolute patriarchy that lead up to the present, and cook up an argument that either "it really wasn't that bad for women (or "feminized" men)", and/or that by this point in time any such lingering injustices have been addressed more than enough, and thus remaining calls to rethink the state of gender relations should be dismissively filed under "Horton hears a Wu", I can guarantee that your post will be infinitely more fascinating than anything I could ever present.

The implication that grievances should be arranged into some sort of "privilege stack" of urgency doesn't sit very well with me.

It's not a matter of "privilege stacking", it's dealing with the reality that not everything can be magically solved at once, and that deciding which one to address at a given time shouldn't be a completely arbitrary process; the alternative, which, not coincidentally, seems to pop its head up with some frequency among "social justice" critics, is to smugly sigh "well, if we can't do this fairly, no reason to even try anything at all, just let the chips fall where they may, not my problem". It's like obsessing over the details of the avant-garde "intact foreskin" wallpaper motif for the den of a house you're planning to build, then scuttling the entire project in a huff when someone points out you haven't even figured out the dimensions of the foundation yet.

But - if we were to do so (and get back on topic) where do you think Mean Tweets and Animu Titties would fall in the grand scheme of things?

See, when you call me out for "suggesting anyone is implying something beyond 'men also have problems'", this is the implication I'm talking about.

Anyway, considering that my most recent gaming purchases were Yakuza 6 and Gal Gun 2 I am fairly secure in saying that that sort of thing isn't an over-arching concern to me personally - at the same time, however, I also do not believe that anyone who criticizes such things must be trying to take them away from me, nor do I assert that my right to enjoy things others may find "objectionable" means that I have no obligation to take anyone else's right to not have those things shoved in their faces into consideration, let alone treat them with any less common courtesy than I'd offer anyone else, nor that doing so makes me a "slave to political correctness". TLDR: Nobody is "under assault", especially not to the extent that they can't do what they want without being an obnoxious asshole about it. Chill.

You move ever onward towards Jabberwocky, BulletMagnet.

Well well, look who's come slithering back out of the woodwork. You want to waste any more of my time, address my criticisms of your abjectly self-defeating "stance" from back on page 63, rather than unilaterally ignoring the ongoing dialogue for a week, allowing the water to muddy itself up and then poking your nose back above the surface in hopes that everyone's forgotten about it. If you think anything resembling a "discussion" can happen when one "participant" feels free to hit the magic reset button whenever it's convenient and everyone else should feel obligated to meekly follow his lead without question, you're even less worth paying any attention to than was already immensely evident.

to this day I still don't understand what bulletmagnet's position actually is

At this point I'm honestly not even sure what manner of lifeform you are.

A prime slice of BulletMagnet, crying out in pain as he strikes you.
I will proceed on the assumption that you are debating in good faith but BulletMagnet, my friend, you do not make that premise an easy one to accept.
A problem, that a growing number of people seem to be having with your debating technique.

Well well, look who's come slithering back out of the woodwork. You want to waste any more of my time, address my criticisms of your abjectly self-defeating "stance" from back on page 63, rather than unilaterally ignoring the ongoing dialogue for a week, allowing the water to muddy itself up and then poking your nose back above the surface in hopes that everyone's forgotten about it. If you think anything resembling a "discussion" can happen when one "participant" feels free to hit the magic reset button whenever it's convenient and everyone else should feel obligated to meekly follow his lead without question, you're even less worth paying any attention to than was already immensely evident.

So I am a snake, with a self defeating stance, that ignores criticism and discussion, hopes that people wont notice and am not worth paying attention to?

The post of yours on page 63 that you mention;
If you look at my post above it, you will see that I have already answered you by quoting a post that I had made on the subject, again in answer to you . . . . two years ago.
Since then, I have again made my position on the subject clear to you, in the Bush thread.

I am not sure how many times or ways, that I can answer the same question, so that I will satisfy you that I am not avoiding addressing it but I am at your disposal (and always have been) to answer any direct question that may ask.

It is perhaps worth pointing out, again, that all this recent "motion" in the GamerGate thread, has resulted in the corralling of the discussion initiated o on page 62.

[BulletMagnet]

If anyone wants to comb through that very post and point out where my following criticism of it is somehow fully addressed before said criticism was even made, they're free to do so: I've plunged my face more than deep enough into this bottomless pile of shit, thank you very much.

A problem, that a growing number of people seem to be having with your debating technique.

The "problem" most folks in here seem to have is that I'm distracting from the thread's one true purpose of innocently mocking completely random ridiculous internet nobodies for no underlying reason whatsoever, which would be a bit more plausible if so many weren't so willing to avert their gaze, if not nod in sagely assent, when the feminization is the fall of civilization rabble rears its head, which I suppose speaks to the lengths our species will sometimes go to disregard the unsettling noises coming from the neighbors' place so long as the ongoing party isn't interrupted.

[BIL]

The "problem" most folks in here seem to have is that I'm distracting from the thread's one true purpose of innocently mocking completely random ridiculous internet nobodies for no underlying reason whatsoever,

Who doesn't love a good scammer roasting, especially in our little neck of the pop cultural woods? Here's a tiny, retrospective glimpse of another that went down a storm. I've always maintained this shit beats TV any day. All but the best TV anyway.



Well, I suppose the scammer in question wouldn't love the roasting. Nor would their proponents! I notice neither you nor BryanM (the thread's ranking ***MRA Slayers***) ever seem to defend the likes of Wu, despite my post history containing enough Hurtful Truth to render half the internet Absolutely Haraam for generations. That's a very shrewd move! I've charitably assumed you both understand this abject grasper is representative of no gender or ideology, only a gluttonous self-interest.

Or maybe, dispensing with charity, you silently yearn to take to the field for my employer, against marauding CYBER VIOLENCERS like myself... but you know she is simply too radioactive. Don't be ashamed. Much bigger fish than us, the likes of Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper, have been forced to accept the same.

which would be a bit more plausible if so many weren't so willing to avert their gaze, if not nod in sagely assent, when the feminization is the fall of civilization rabble rears its head, which I suppose speaks to the lengths our species will sometimes go to disregard the unsettling noises coming from the neighbors' place so long as the ongoing party isn't interrupted.

An unsettling noise would be pedophile grooming gangs, rampant FGM, Nazi-saluting Pugs and the like. Well outside this silly thread. This is more like a bunch of cunts next door loudly discussing the hot new show I don't watch, "Who Shot Western Civilisation?" Meanwhile I'm just trying to enjoy my own thing, "Massachusetts Death Race II: The Commander Strykes Back."

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Mind you, I guarantee that at least one person on here is now furiously scanning blogs and YouTube videos with single-digit viewerships for a hit-count-seeking (and, apparently, successful to that end) nutcase to "prove" that I'm only here to gaslight you,

Never doubt this.

Clearly the burden is on me to provide "proof" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...what the ever-loving fuck are you on about? I list a handful of ways off the cuff in which women "have it worse" than men, without elaboration; in your reply you do the exact same thing (albeit, again, without bothering to screen for even minimal equivalence), I point out inherent shortcoming with a few of those items (which, offhand, I don't believe you ever bothered to do with my examples), and am suddenly called out for having not provided "proof" for my shortlist, "surprise surprise", and moreover for having unreasonably demanded "proof" from you (where, I'd love to know) without having provided the same myself. It's like a game of freaking chutes and ladders. On that note...

It seems like your list was to be accepted as a matter-of-fact, which is fine; they're widely circulated and discussed feminist talking points. Yet, my list (and I'm seriously wondering if this is the first time you've been confronted with a list of such grievances) was an invitation to (after a two day break from the discussion) debunk, downplay and measure equivalence - I mean, okay - whatever, its fine for the purpose of discussion - but forgive my negativity when being told something that sounds like "It doesnt matter that all these men die; did you know that less than 5% of CEOs are women?". I was only trying to say men have problems too.

The implication that grievances should be arranged into some sort of "privilege stack" of urgency doesn't sit very well with me.

It's not a matter of "privilege stacking", it's dealing with the reality that not everything can be magically solved at once, and that deciding which one to address at a given time shouldn't be a completely arbitrary process;

If we do this excersise; looking at boys falling behind in school, suicide rates, etc - isn't it fair to argue that the male gender is the one in the most widespread imminent danger, seeing as a lot work is being done to balance things for women yet men's issues seem to be universally suppressed?

the alternative, which, not coincidentally, seems to pop its head up with some frequency among "social justice" critics, is to smugly sigh "well, if we can't do this fairly, no reason to even try anything at all, just let the chips fall where they may, not my problem". It's like obsessing over the details of the avant-garde "intact foreskin" wallpaper motif for the den of a house you're planning to build, then scuttling the entire project in a huff when someone points out you haven't even figured out the dimensions of the foundation yet.

Who's says this? You wouldnt use some fringe-blogger-youtube crazies' bullshit to dismiss my argument would you?

But - if we were to do so (and get back on topic) where do you think Mean Tweets and Animu Titties would fall in the grand scheme of things?

See, when you call me out for "suggesting anyone is implying something beyond 'men also have problems'", this is the implication I'm talking about.

Explain.

Anyway, this wasn't a jab at you personally; more at the non-issue that is "ohno you can see up chun-li's skirt" and where it might lie in the "privilege stack".

The "problem" most folks in here seem to have is that I'm distracting from the thread's one true purpose of innocently mocking completely random ridiculous internet nobodies for no underlying reason whatsoever, which would be a bit more plausible if so many weren't so willing to avert their gaze, if not nod in sagely assent, when the feminization is the fall of civilization rabble rears its head, which I suppose speaks to the lengths our species will sometimes go to disregard the unsettling noises coming from the neighbors' place so long as the ongoing party isn't interrupted.

Okay so more jovial mockery, more BIL gifs, less "wrongthink".

This is more like a bunch of cunts next door loudly discussing the hot new show I don't watch, "Who Shot Western Civilisation?" Meanwhile I'm just trying to enjoy my own thing, "Massachusetts Death Race II: The Commander Strykes Back."

Silence is violence.

[BIL]

To moderate that point slightly, I don't think this thread needs to be one thing or the other. Just clarifying why I stick around. I'll just be over in the corner with my Commander Stryker tapes nodding sagely between sips of lager. Look forward to Senator Wu.

[Zen]

Senator Wu.

[charlie chong]

i just find the hypocrisy of most of the people involved in this shit so funny e.g sargon of akkad or whatever his name is going on about "personal responsibility" and "communism is the devil etc" then because he is getting sued "please donate to my patreon i'm broke"