Anita Sarkeesian discussion



  • @Firefly:

    You're going to have to pull out a quote and/or a time stamp with the video for exactly when she said that, because I honestly can't remember. Look, I don't agree with everything Sarkeesian says, but I don't think she's as bad as some of her detractors make her out to be. She's not out to ban games.

    Agreed. I haven't seen all of her videos, but in the ones I have seen, her psychology is laughably elementary, and she makes some stupidly wild leaps of so-called "logic", but not everything she says is wrong.



  • @SpacemanHardy:

    No you didn't. I erased it, after I called you out on it and got nothing resembling an apology of any sort, as well as a rather B.S. response as to why you used it in the first place.

    Look. Whenever I see a person commit horrible atrocities, whether that person is real or fictitious, I, like most other people, end up demanding that the person receive some kind of punishment for their sins. However, my ideas of comeuppance tend to be rather… for lack of a better word... twisted. Whenever I see or hear about someone committing horrible things, I tend to dehumanize them. And when I do, I tend to propose very extreme measures in punishing them. For example, whenever I hear about an NFL Football player abusing and attacking his wife, I vocally say that I believe that the football player should be mercilessly beaten or killed. And whenever I vent out my rage over a person doing cruel and despicable things, I don"t care if that person is a man or a woman. I just say that if a person should perform cruel and sadistic acts, then cruel and sadistic acts should be acted upon her in return. My saying, Minerva deserves to get raped was just an example of that. And I am going to confess something to you right here and now: when I made such posts on the old Funimation website, Ninja_Shinigami_Mage succeeded in talking some sense into me. And to be honest, I actually felt dirty for saying anything about anyone deserving to get raped. And I felt dirty for writing that fanfiction where I had all of those horrible things happen to her, even by the hands of Natsu and Erza. So I actually took that fanfiction and tossed it into the recycle bin. And after Minerva started to redeem herself in Chapter 388 and onward, I felt even dirtier and was even glad that I threw that fanfic away. So when I heard Firefly and thorstwin express hatred for Minerva, I do agree that they have valid points, but I thought I would inform them of the extent of my hatred back in 2013 so I can scare them into thinking, Wow! I"m glad I don"t hate her that much.” Plus, when I asked Mashima to have a later villain rape her, I specifically told him not to glorify it. In fact, I asked him to completely demonize it and have Erza call that very villain out on it. And while I don"t say that any sadistic male characters deserve to get raped, I do sometimes say that they should be castrated or beaten to death, which may be just as bad.

    Okay, I would like to give out a formal apology for being such a heartless psychopath by writing what I did. It was stupid, selfish, and downright sick.

    @paige62182:

    Agreed. I haven't seen all of her videos, but in the ones I have seen, her psychology is laughably elementary, and she makes some stupidly wild leaps of so-called "logic", but not everything she says is wrong.

    Yes, she does make some valid points. The problem is that her valid points are overshadowed by as Chechire Cat Studios called them "from highly subjective personal interpretations to downright misinformation." And if you have one valid point but stack it together with a cluster of subjective viewpoints and even blatant lies, then that valid point becomes no saving grace. In fact, that valid point makes it more tempting to lament the dishonesty and lack of objectivity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GvzIoOYUHrU



  • This post is deleted!


  • http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement-rebel-alliance-empire

    This article pretty much sums up my experience in life. The comments section reminds me of some of our discussions here. I'm not trying to start any shit-storms, but reasonable discourse is always welcomed!

    The link to the article she's responding to seems to take you to a different post on his blog, and I've not been able to find the correct post in the limited time I have to look. If anyone finds it, please let me know, because I want to read it!



  • @paige62182:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement-rebel-alliance-empire

    I read this opinion piece a couple days ago when it surfaced; I'm not impressed with it, not in the least.

    One of my biggest pet peeves in this day and age is the automatic assumption that if someone is born white, straight and male, that life is easier; this is a terrible myth and with the collective stupidity of people in the developed world; it's gaining traction. I'm sorry, I just don't look to kindly to people believing they know me based on my racial ethnicity, sexual preference and gender and as of late it seems like it's not only fine for people to make assumptions about others based on these attributes, but to demonize them, and frankly; I don't have to put up with it.

    What it all feels like to me, it's just a construct to get people with my physical and genetic attributes to walk on eggshells for others; to perpetuate and instill a sense of guilt that I shouldn't have to begin with; a rationality to downplay my experiences and look to me with a sense of hostility and animosity.

    This is the sort of garbage I was exposed to when I sought help with the major issues I have come across in my life and went on to learn that people just like me have had to deal with the same rationalization of indifference.

    If people want to talk privilege, yes, I do believe some people have it, but to a certain extent; but, for the most part, these factors are not dependent on a person's racial ethnicity or gender or even sexual preference (to a certain degree). What ultimately matters is the environment and living conditions someone lives in. For example, here in Canada, I would consider myself privileged and thankful for living under a democracy, having programs that are made to help others, such as finding employment in comparison to someone in say 3rd world China; which I have been to. That experience made me thankful for what I have and the conditions I live in.

    With this, privilege is more about what country, what part of that country, the wealth level of the family and behaviors of the family, that they grow up in. Much of the time, a family that is doing well financially is also plugged into the social pipeline; I've seen often enough, especially with the union positions of the company I work for (which is hard to get into) that most of the young workers have relatives that got them work while they take their college classes. Believe me, with the wage they receive, and the hours they get it's an opportunity above and beyond what a young student could ask for in terms of summer and part time work. Of course, many of these people do stay on, and eventually seek management positions, once again, family connections and such.

    This is the situation with a lot of companies and families; the privilege comes from who they know and the opportunities they present. Of course, there are many who lead sheltered lives and it's these people who are spilling most of this implicit hate bile everywhere. To point fingers at white males and call them privileged regardless of the circumstances they grew up in, or better yet, not knowing their background, how hard they worked, not just to be where they are in life, but for the opportunities that took them there is ignorant and judgmental.

    Nobody truly "knows" anyone else, and basing this knowledge on superficial factors like race, gender and sexual preference is a flimsy assumption at best and only serves to perpetuate further animosity.

    @paige62182:

    This article pretty much sums up my experience in life. The comments section reminds me of some of our discussions here. I'm not trying to start any shit-storms, but reasonable discourse is always welcomed!

    The link to the article she's responding to seems to take you to a different post on his blog, and I've not been able to find the correct post in the limited time I have to look. If anyone finds it, please let me know, because I want to read it!

    I think we can look at this as being a teenager growing up is not an easy thing to do for anybody regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation(although I think this one would possibly add more difficulty); and while things do get better, there are aspects that become more difficult and more confusing with passing age. I find myself blanking out these days recalling events and times from a long time ago, so much experience, so many people I've met, it's hard to believe it's been so long since those times.

    Anyways, this is something both men and women go through in terms of sexual dynamics and yeah, the "nerd" group in high school; few people looked their way and that included them not noticing each other.



  • I disagree with most of this, but I think most of that disagreement stems from the very minor, but still existent cultural differences between the US and Canada. I believe that Canada is far more progressive in its race relations. I really have nothing concrete to back that up, beyond a few friends who live in Canada and are appalled at the stories of racial unrest here.

    You cite nepotism and economic class as being the primary reason that you disagree with this article, but consider this. Here in the US single women and minorities are paid significantly less money and have to work significantly harder to gain promotion, either have to pay a higher interest rate or meet more stringent requirements (i.e. higher credit score) to gain approval for mortgages than their white, male counterparts, and, for the minorities, are discouraged from buying houses in certain neighborhoods. I have seen this with my own eyes. It happens a lot. They cannot maintain an equal economic or social status with white males, so they cannot help out their family members through nepotism. Therefore they start out at a disadvantage, just by being born without a penis or with slightly darker skin. I hope that things are better in Canada, because here, minorities tend to be segregated into the ghettos, persecuted by the police (Ferguson, MO, anyone?), and generally disadvantaged. We have seen significant improvement in the past few decades here in the US, but it is nowhere near approaching a state of balance.

    Now, back to this article, where does the author state that she is denigrating male suffering? She says I'm very sorry your childhood sucked. Mine did too, and my adulthood doesn't show any signs of getting better. I, being the single, white female that I am, agree that my experience is very similar to hers, except that she was able to pay for a better education than I was.



  • @Firefly:

    You're going to have to pull out a quote and/or a time stamp with the video for exactly when she said that, because I honestly can't remember. Look, I don't agree with everything Sarkeesian says, but I don't think she's as bad as some of her detractors make her out to be. She's not out to ban games.

    No, they (collectively) are not out to ban games. They are just out to destroy the current definition of what a game is, so it fits within their utopian society of "equality" and parrots their SJW narrative. Incidentally this will suck all the fun out of playing games because all that will be left is utter dreck like Depression Quest or Gone Home. It's also sad that so many people follow her after being shown on video, to admitting to never having really been a gamer, or even liked games. And frankly I'm not going to believe anything coming out of the mouth of someone who will purposely play a game in a punitive (to the player) manner, to try and prove it was designed to encourage violence or misogyny or some crap like that (see: Hitman Absolution, killing strippers and posing them sexually because physics allows it).. Hell I can't even remember if that was her, but it probably was - or at least someone like her.

    They tried to do this to the BDSM community, they have tried to do it to other communities, they're trying to do it to gaming now, and also Metal music. Its ridiculous, and I'm glad people are fighting back. They way they were able to co-opt the narrative of GamerGate and take the discussion in the media entirely away from ethics in game journalism is utterly appalling. But that's about what I expect from folks who consider responding to their tweets or disagreeing with them, to be "harassment". All they can do is claim perpetual victim-hood.

    That's all this is really. One giant victim-hood pyramid scheme as a cover to insert their political agendas into everything they can get their hands on in society. They've already tainted Academia with such nonsense to the point where you can't even organize or hold events without getting labeled all kinds of hate, or shouted down, or worse. Anyone remember when a college campus was supposed to be the bastion of "free speech" ?



  • @SpacemanHardy:

    right now you're on my shit list, Shodan.

    And you're on mine too, Spaceman.



  • ^ Well, it's nice to see we can at least agree on one thing.



  • Lately, Riles and Firefly have been talking about how the Sarkeesian-Thompson comparisons hold little to no water, which I find absolutely perposterous. While the two differ in may ways, there is a reason those comparisons are made in the first place. And I think that Riles and Firefly are completely misunderstanding that. Now, I think we should have more mentioning of Christina Hoff Sommers as she said in her second video that even Feminists have a hard time determining what is sexist. Plus, a lot of differences between Jack and Anita actually work in Jack's favor. Here are a few images and videos below:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShRigJQPExs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROQbhFlW9Ks

    Additionally, I think that if anybody should be the face of feminism in gaming, it's Christina Hoff Sommers



  • @iamshodan:

    While the two differ in may ways, there is a reason those comparisons are made in the first place.

    Yes, because illogical dissenters make the comparison in order to fabricate a falsified narrative

    The comparison is that they are addressing two very different things, which you may recognize as not being a comparison at all. Anita looks for change in video games, while Thompson looks for the complete eradication of video games. Apparently this comparison is enough for people like you to say it's a double standard

    I also don't know why you're talking about feminists in general with the rest of your paragraph. Does Anita represent all feminists now? Is this really what anti-feminists use as a basis for argument? We're talking about Anita here, since, y'know, this is the Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread. I had hoped you would've understood that, given you are the one that created the thread in the first place. I may have been too generous with my assumptions about your general level of understanding

    EDIT: Your video is also laughable because you're still missing the point. This isn't a matter of which one you respect more. I'm not arguing that, because you've made it clear that you have more respect for a guy that essentially wants to perform a mass genocide on an entire form of media. The argument here is whether or not their arguments are valid, which I've already explained my position on

    Is Thompson's platform valid? No, because it's been proven before that video games don't affect a person's mental issues any more than ones that don't play video games. Is Sarkeesian's platform valid? Sure, there's certainly room for discussion about whether or not sexism in video games affects sexism in the real world. I certainly don't agree with her argument that it does (though some elements of equality can certainly be added), but I'm certainly not as nearly as bad as someone like you who dismisses the entirely discussion entirely

    @iamshodan:

    And you're on mine too, Spaceman.

    I look forward to the disturbing fanfiction of him that you'll brag about writing later



  • A)
    I noticed that in addressing said comparison you conveniently overlooked the fact that both Jack and Anita have made spurious claims about how games are teaching/reinforcing specific behaviors. Jack said games are murder simulators training a generation of children to go out and kill people in cold blood. Anita and other "feminists" like her claim that games are teaching kids to be misogynistic, enforcing damsel tropes, teaching them to objectify women, and on and on and on.

    The point in the comparison is that there is no scientific or other notable, credible, research actually proving this. Yet thousands of people jump on board the bangwagon (oops Freudian slip and I'm too lazy to backspace) and repeat the same incessant crap over and over without actually challenging their own conclusions or ideas. Where is the double standard? The GAMING media pretty much crucified Jack Thompson and the MSM who supported his parroting. Whereas the GAMING media has pretty much allowed Anita and others like her to parrot their false victim-hood narrative unchecked, while simultaneously attacking gamers and dissenters alike, even when they are professionals from within their own organizations. The GAMING press has been shown to be actively colluding with each other to self-censor on this subject, and in some cases ostracize and attempt to blackball other professionals who won't tow the line, or gasp dare speak out against all this SJW poppycock.

    If that's not a double standard I don't know what is.

    B)
    If real feminists are sick of being lumped in with these people then they need to clean house. They are the ones running around claiming to be feminists, shitposting against any woman who disagrees with them and claiming the dissenter isn't a real feminist, etc.



  • @Neco:

    A)
    I noticed that in addressing said comparison you conveniently overlooked the fact that both Jack and Anita have made spurious claims about how games are teaching/reinforcing specific behaviors. Jack said games are murder simulators training a generation of children to go out and kill people in cold blood. Anita and other "feminists" like her claim that games are teaching kids to be misogynistic, enforcing damsel tropes, teaching them to objectify women, and on and on and on.

    I made it pretty clear what both their stances were about without conveniently overlooking it, but I appreciate your contribution



  • Yeah I noticed that ninja edit



  • @Neco:

    No, they (collectively) are not out to ban games. They are just out to destroy the current definition of what a game is, so it fits within their utopian society of "equality" and parrots their SJW narrative. Incidentally this will suck all the fun out of playing games because all that will be left is utter dreck like Depression Quest or Gone Home. It's also sad that so many people follow her after being shown on video, to admitting to never having really been a gamer, or even liked games. And frankly I'm not going to believe anything coming out of the mouth of someone who will purposely play a game in a punitive (to the player) manner, to try and prove it was designed to encourage violence or misogyny or some crap like that (see: Hitman Absolution, killing strippers and posing them sexually because physics allows it).. Hell I can't even remember if that was her, but it probably was - or at least someone like her.

    Oh I'm well aware of Sarkeesian's questionable credibility, methodology and whatnot. And yes, I believe it was her with the Hitman footage, and I agree with you that it's stupid. I don't pay much attention to the extreme feminists (or extremists in general) that are only willing to have their own worldview parroted back to them and think everyone else is evil if they don't 100% agree. They will never be happy. I don't think Sarkeesian's entirely right, far from it, but she's not completely wrong either. There are aspects that games could improve upon (I don't think the answer is "never have these things in fictional media because they're always bad" because that ignores context -and Sarkeesian does like to do that- and times where they can be included and handled well, nor do I think all games should fit into a safe little box of what one person/group deems "okay"), but she's cherry-picking examples of the bad things and rarely mentions examples of what she finds good, of which there should be plenty.



  • And shockingly enough, even Jack Thompson doesn't see eye to eye with Anita.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tF8m0q_CQM

    Also, I would like to bring up Anita's producer, boyfriend, and #1 cohort, Jonathan McIntosh and the #FullMcIntosh hashtag that people have been using to make fun of both him and those who jump on the defend-Anita bandwagon. Lately, that has gained popularity.

    I would also like to talk about a personal traitor to me: Adam Sessler. Ever since late 2007, I've watched various videos of Xplay and I loved hearing Sessler make various jokes about the games he reviews. I always enjoyed him. But lately, he's been getting on my bad side. He defended Anita in one of his videos, while also accusing gamers of being sexist. And later, this year, he showed up on Anita's "25 Benefits Of Being A Man In Gaming" video, hosted by McIntosh, where he just smited the gaming community along with everyone else who showed up in that video. He even sent out a tweet praising her and sucking up to her, so I sent him a tweet saying, "Adam, why? Why are you supporting Anita Sarkeesian? She's a liar. She's a con artist. She's a misandrist." Then, later on, I sent him another tweet showing this video:
    tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45H25Sc6fig

    Then, when I checked his profile again, it turns out that he's blocking me because I must have really gotten under his skin, just like they do with other gamers contacting the gaming journalists directly, so I, as payback, decided to flag him for harassment. Also, I tried contacting Adam's former friend on Xplay, Morgan Webb, to hear her thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian. My plan was that if Morgan disagreed with Anita, I would ask her to confront Adam about Anita.

    Finally, I would like to bring up the Twitter #GreatWomenInVideogames hashtag. And the main rule for this was that she just had to be a great woman in video games. It didn't matter whether she was sexualized or not. Bayonetta, Ivy, Velvet from Odin Sphere, and Milla Maxwell from Tales of Xillia had their own pictures in there. So I put up one myself: Judith from Tales of Vesperia. And some people liked it.

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/greatwomeninvideogames?f=realtime&src=hash



  • Of course he doesn't. She doesn't want to remove video games from the universe, and she isn't arguing that video games kill people

    But on a more serious note, why does it matter what Thompson thinks? You're using proof that Thompson doesn't care for Sarkeesian's platform to prove that Sarkeesian's platform is as ridiculous as Thompson's. What is your reasoning here? How do these two things connect? Are you suddenly claiming that Thompson's statements are as valid as his own position? You still haven't even really said whether or not you think Thompson is on a valid platform. Is this what you're claiming now? Have you ever argued before?



  • @paige62182:

    I disagree with most of this, but I think most of that disagreement stems from the very minor, but still existent cultural differences between the US and Canada. I believe that Canada is far more progressive in its race relations. I really have nothing concrete to back that up, beyond a few friends who live in Canada and are appalled at the stories of racial unrest here.

    I hear that often, so maybe people are privileged to live here; I"m certainly thankful that I live here. The only issue is that like the states, we"re beginning to see the middle class slowly dissolve. Many industrial and manufacturing jobs that pay well are getting outsourced to other countries for cheaper production costs; that"s fine, but who"s going to buy a supposed affordable product when nobody can afford it because they were laid off from their employment?

    The main aspect though is that this is not dependent on racial ethnicity or gender; it"s more about the industries. I"m pretty fortunate because I"m in a union position and work in the logistics industry; which is something Edmonton has a lot of.

    @paige62182:

    You cite nepotism and economic class as being the primary reason that you disagree with this article, but consider this. Here in the US single women and minorities are paid significantly less money and have to work significantly harder to gain promotion,

    Are you referring to the so called wage gap? That"s actually a myth that"s been debunked numerous times over. The reason a pay disparity exists between men and women is due to various factors such as but aren't limited to; it"s based on annual salary, not hourly wage and hours worked; men often work more hours on average and vastly more over time, men choose more tech and engineering focused industry for employment, men overwhelmingly work more of the gritty, hard labor jobs which are usually union, so they get paid well, this includes trade work such as welding and mechanics. On that note, here in Alberta we actually have a program to entice women to get into the trades, it"s called Women Building Futures, and even then, they"re still have trouble getting women on board despite the ease of entry, union protection, good hours and great pay.

    The bottom line, the reason there is a difference in pay between men and women is ultimately an amalgamation of all their choices. Even with nursing for example, with the minuscule number of male nurses, they still make more money; why? Many work more over time, graveyard shifts (which includes a premium) and also do various shift work. Even with industries men choose, say logistics, engineering, construction they work a solid 40 hours per week (before over time, and there is always over time); that"s an 8.5 hour day with the 0.5 being deducted for lunch. Compare this to the ones women choose, such as office, clerical, banking and accounting; usually do a 37.5 hour work week; their days are 8 hours minus 0.5 hours for lunch making it a 7.5 hour work day. So right there, that provides another component of why there"s an apparent pay disparity.

    @paige62182:

    either have to pay a higher interest rate or meet more stringent requirements (i.e. higher credit score) to gain approval for mortgages than their white, male counterparts, and, for the minorities, are discouraged from buying houses in certain neighborhoods.

    The higher interest rates and strict requirements might come back to the type of work people are involved in; working higher risk, more intellectually and physically taxing work generally pays more, so it"s easier to get a loan. I've been on both sides of the fence where I've done a range of work and have seen a difference; so it"s not my gender or race playing into this and it"s always been more difficult to get a loan in Canada; they"re damn strict up here.

    Now, in the states, one of the horrible things that"s happening to some minorities is that they"re being exploited; some of them are in the states illegally and as a result get blackmailed, exploited and extorted by companies; it"s basically, work for very little, or get reported to immigration; it"s a tragic situation.

    @paige62182:

    Therefore they start out at a disadvantage, just by being born without a penis or with slightly darker skin.

    With that said though, it ultimately comes back to the economic status a person is born into regardless of race or gender. The issue here is that I know in the states there are ghettos where minorities (and plenty of white people) are born into poverty and the system is set in such a way that it"s difficult to dig themselves out; in others words, a system that operates to make the poor even more poor regardless of their race or gender.

    @paige62182:

    I hope that things are better in Canada, because here, minorities tend to be segregated into the ghettos, persecuted by the police (Ferguson, MO, anyone?), and generally disadvantaged.

    As I mentioned they seem to be, but as I said about the ghettos, there are plenty of white slum areas in Canada and US, and people, especially men, take a lot of heat from police. Myself, I've gotten stopped and harassed numerous times with the police trying to aggravate me into a conflict so that they have an excuse to assault me, or even shoot; the difference being; would people call them out for it? Highly doubtful since based on my skin color, gender and sexual orientation I"m seen as privileged.

    It"s precisely why I find people calling white men privileged to be insulting, derogatory and downright dehumanizing. If that isn't enough though, I find this disturbing:

    As for the Ferguson incident, I wasn't there, but I can say confidently that I don"t think the police needed to shoot the guy to death. If the situation was so bad and they needed to open fire, I"m sure they could have wounded the guy and arrested him. The actions taken by the cops seem very suspicious to me and since I don"t trust them; I mean, I get nervous when I see a squad car driving around and I start thinking; oh, what are they going to stop me for now? As for the case not going to trial; that"s pretty awful, I suspect some sort of corruption that someone was paid off, however; I think it would've been the same if the cop shot a white male or any other type of male.

    However, I did hear about the two police officers that got killed and people saying and implying they deserved it; this is not a good thing and on top of that; those police officers were visible minorities.

    @paige62182:

    We have seen significant improvement in the past few decades here in the US, but it is nowhere near approaching a state of balance.

    There"s been some improvement, however; as I said, there"s a widening gap between the rich and poor and a slow dissolving of the middle class; I find this unsettling.

    @paige62182:

    Now, back to this article, where does the author state that she is denigrating male suffering? She says I'm very sorry your childhood sucked. Mine did too, and my adulthood doesn't show any signs of getting better. I, being the single, white female that I am, agree that my experience is very similar to hers, except that she was able to pay for a better education than I was.

    I agree that she was simply stating that she had gone through much of the same that this man she"s talking about did; life is not always easy and at times downright difficult for both men and women of all ages, however; she downplays his experiences by saying that he has privilege and that things would've been worse for him if he was anything but a white male. I've seen more than enough, and even worse write ups of women talking about why they hate men, or why it"s difficult to not hate men, making horrible generalizations and even worse; to call them out, or disagree, makes a person sexist, or better yet, the whole privilege argument gets brought up implying that a white male is not permitted to be offended. That he must learn to empathize; I"m sorry, but if someone is spilling out a bunch of hate fuelled bile; you lose the right to my empathy, if a person is going to package and label me with judgments based on my skin color, gender and sexual orientation; I don"t have to listen in the same vain I would never indulge in listening to a KKK member rationalize white superiority.

    Either way, it just seems like everyone"s an oppressed victim these days; I admit, I've been through some horrible ordeals that involved women, but I don"t let them define me and I certainly don"t live in fear of women as a result or imply a rationalization that would alienate or allow me to judge women.

    Which brings me to my next point and I speak from experience; if someone wants to improve their life, it can be done, but I"m going to be honest, it"s a fucking hard uphill battle; but it"s all worth it in the end. For the first time in my life, I do feel a degree of peace, I"m pleased and thankful with my job that I've worked for the last three years, though it"s nothing glamorous and it gets pretty tedious and dirty some days, for the first time I have a job that meets my needs and satisfies my simple desires, I"m not rich by any means, but if I play my cards right, I just might be okay. At the end of the day, I think we"ll just have to agree to disagree.

    As for all the Sarsleazian talk, at the end of the day, to me, people like her are like the Macdonald"s of gender politics; this includes people I tend to agree with like The Amazing Atheist who, like Sarsleazian, have pretty looking videos that seem more like fast food politics versus informative discourse.
    And yeah, here"s some more ignorance by Sarsleazian herself.

    Excuse me while I go vomit now.

    Lastly:

    @Firefly and iamshodan I sent you guys each a message.



  • lol, The only thing missing from that picture is multiple requests for donations



  • @Riles:

    You still haven't even really said whether or not you think Thompson is on a valid platform. Is this what you're claiming now? Have you ever argued before?

    Have you? No, seriously, have you?

    As for you, neonwalrus, I hope you check out these three videos down below, addressing Anita's blaming of mass school shootings on that imaginary patriarchy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzpue3MPuko
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH1wrUtzSWM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DbElJDcQ7o

    Now, Riles, do you think there's a valid reason for comparing Anita and Jack?