......in a tornado.

a sharknado!

a shitstorm.

a shitticane

draw fat Gamergator! oh wait, you don't like fat dudes. XD

ewwww grosssss!

I'd watch it.

this first funky fighter sequel sucks

It ends on a cliffhanger where mostly just a lot of sharks are driven out of their homes for an extended period of time.

NO ONE CAN PROVE IT WAS ALLIGATORS, IT WAS A FALSE FLAG OPERATION, LOOK AT THIS TWEET

WATCH THIS 20 MINUTE YOUTUBE VIDEO TO LEARN THE TRUTH

I READ WHY IT'S ALL A LIE ON INFOBUTTS

Look at all that harassment!

IT'S EVERYWHERE

HOW IS IT EVEN ON THE CEILING D8

All I can say is... fuck that con-artist. Sooner or later the facts will slip out in the mainstream media; someone will break ranks, and the then the SocJus faux-moral crusaders will be expelled from yet ANOTHER community they're trying to co-opt and ruin (the first being Atheism. Look up "Atheism+" and "ElevatorGate" and the con-artists behind that. Because atheism is totally about how hard it is to be a woman in the first world, right? Oh yeah, and you can't offend anyone, ever, including their religious sensibilities... because atheists are supposed to have fucks to give about religious feels.

I think you might be confused about which side of this debate I fall under.

Well, I can't help it if you a) don't bother to research people b) don't bother to research events c) listen to hearsay d) listen hearsay and e) think keyboard hero social justice warriors are actually a good thing.

Actually take some time to go read Ms. Sarkeesian's thesis and check up on her work history and past comments, and you'll see she's a fraud. Actually check on Zoe Quinn's past and you'll see she's a user and a professional victim and a predator. Actually look at the "threats" and you'll see not one of them actually mentions GamerGate or gaming; it's all just spin by the media.

But it is unfortunately a human right to be ignorant, be it willful or otherwise.

log off

Do some research first. Due Process > Listen and Believe. Evidence > Feelings. Truth and Facts > False claims.

If you really believe 4 million tweets with a hashtag is an organized hate mob... then there's no hope for you. Political agendas have no business being imposed in other peoples work, and sociopathic liars shouldn't be held up as martyrs, nor should professional con-artists with communication degrees be held up as experts in ANYTHING. /2cents

I'm going to assume that you probably don't follow me on Tumblr, so you don't know that I've hashed this out quite a few times already. :) I don't know anything about Zoe Quinn and I don't care for Anita Sarkeesian (mostly because her videos are boring entry-level feminist theory that really doesn't say anything of interest or bring anything new to the game), but they have very little to do with my feelings on Gamergate. They could be worse than Hitler, and it still wouldn't change the fact that gamergaters' completely overblown and hilariously juvenile reaction is what soured me on the whole movement. If anything, gamergater's furious response to Sarkeesian's extremely mild, milquetoasty feminist critiques just lends support to claims that video game culture can't stand ANY encroachment by women in the old boys' club.

Plus, video game "journalism" is obviously completely corrupt and always has been; it just exists as a soft marketing arm for the video gameindustry. even though this has been common knowledge for years, it seems pretty suspicious that nobody cared until it could be used as a smokescreen to cover outrage about a tawdry little sex non-scandal. I would be upset about all this payola except that, uh, it's video games, so ultimately it's really not important at all.

It's also interesting to note that elevator gate is a similar situation where a relatively minor incident was escalated by a completely overblown backlash. It probably wouldn't make one think less of atheism as a movement to know that some random dork had inappropriately but probably innocently attempted to hit on a woman in an elevator, but it give one pause when the reaction of atheism's leading spokesperson Richard Dawkins to hearing about the incident is SHUT UP, HOW DARE YOU SAY TALK ABOUT THIS YOU WHORE YOU'RE LUCKY YOU'RE NOT IN SAUDI ARABIA*

*NOT A VERBATIM QUOTE

Oh lol I thought you were fking with me XD

Well, no Dawkins was reacting to the "he invited me for coffee!" claim, and not the gradual evolution of the lie. "Dear Muslima" was a shot at 1st World Tumblrina's appropriating the misery of the 3rd world and the long dead past to their advantage. >_> That girl and her white knight were total frauds, all sorts of vids of them being crass and hypocritical later surfaced. :P

Once again, doesn't really matter what prompted it, Dawkins shouldn't be throwing petulant little hissy fits on Twitter if he wants people to think of him as the Responsible Adult face of atheism.

I'm pretty sure as an adult and probably one of the more brilliant communicators alive, he can do what he pleases, and calling out obvious liars and shills like her and her cohort P Z Myers who tried to co-opt Atheism to somehow be about women... because the two have anything to do with each other. And then Atheism+ telling people they couldn't hurt theists feelings, because that makes sense.

If he's such a brilliant communicator, he probably could have come up with a tweet that didn't make him look like an idiot.

I think it's very important to make women as unwelcome in atheism as possible, because they'll distract men going their own way from what's really important, namely video games and sex robots.

First of all, only Feminists think they have the right to speak on behalf of all women. Only that fraud, LIAR about the elevatorgate situation (it didn't actually happen, her story kept changing and then she claimed that she had a disease that kept her from recognizing faces, except that she could recognize celebrities from across a crowded room. Plus, I was personally a victim of a crazy woman trying to say I "cornered" her in a stairwell in college, fortunately she didn't know that a) I'm gay and b) I was on the phone with a friend at the time. So, she got absolutely destroyed as a result of that lie (I basically shamed her off campus for being a monster) was made to feel uncomfortable. Something that made a woman feel unwelcome? A woman wore a shirt later on that said "I don't need your brand of feminism" or something like that and a younger teen girl actually burst into tears and had to go home, and this for some reason was widely publicized - that's not shameful, that crying girl is MENTALLY ILL. Yeah, you don't tolerate mental illness; people get treatment and recover or handle it, or the leave/get locked up.

Also, you, like these feminists would have to explain why they should get time and money to talk about "atheism and being a woman" and how that furthers the goal of destroying religion and promoting secularism and the progress of scientific thought. That is the purpose of being an atheist - to reject religion and embrace reality. The Feminists (and then the SJWs) came into Atheism because it became "popular" and they saw a "platform" they could co-opt.

There's nothing unwelcoming about what Dawkins did, because anyone informed about how ludicrous and false the drunk who teamed up with P Z Myers to pull the con in the first place, would easily see that all she deserves is ridicule. These are the same people who claim there is a patriarchy in the U.S. and that women live in a constant state of injustice and oppression (no, there isn't and no, they don't - not institutionally).

On a semi-related note, I found it stomach turning the attorney general of Virginia (I think?) was admonishing Rolling Stone magazine for retracting their story about "Jackie" and her gang rape (she's changing her story and they didn't research it diligently so it's become apparent she's full of shit) because apparently the narrative > facts. What kind of world do we live in where false rape claims that defame almost 10 people and an entire fraternity are tolerable because it might benefit a feminist agenda?

I've come to the conclusion there are two kinds of malcontents: The insane and the criminal. If we can ever find a way to determine a lie with 100% accuracy... all those people would be finished, and I would be ecstatic.

Don't you mean that you would be...euphoric?

Are these blatant lies just like gamergate being buddy buddy with Jack Thompson?

Yes? GamerGate can't be buddy buddy with anyone first of all - it's a consumer revolt, not an organization. Second of all, only extremists like SJWs and Feminazi's claim that "you have to disagree with someone 100% of the time, or you co-sign everything they've ever said/done". That's retarded. Thompson is a pro-censorship, out of took jackass. But even he has the common sense to see Anita for what she is. And since he's just as much of a self-interested, faux-moralistic shill as she is (well, he was, he has no career anymore), he should be able to recognize her immediately for what she is.

Just because people linked a video interview of Jack Thompson discussing the issue, after McIntosh repeated, verbatim, a BUNCH of ideological remarks Thompson had made about violence in media, and Jack Thompson AGREED with the position that, yes, these people are insane, doesn't mean GamerGate embraces him. He is still an asshole, just an irrelevant, and completely toothless one. Remember, it was the SJWs and Feminazi's who made a propaganda song about how they weren't Jack Thompson and just wanted to "make games better" (through censorship).

Claiming that someone is hypocritical or repulsive because someone who is themselves repulsive or has held diametrically opposed view in the past to your current position that is now supporting you is nothing but Guilt By Association - a fallacy used by racists. That's unsurprising considering that SJWs and Feminazis always devolve into some kind of racist, sexists or homophobic position when pressured to hard because all they're doing is projecting their own self loathing or repressed toxicity.

Gamergate is conveniently nebulous when it needs to be, so you can't pin any negatives to it, because those are all JUST A FEW BAD APPLES, yet all anti-gamergaters are one evil hivemind. Oh, wait, I fogot, everything bad that's been attributed to gamergate is really just feminists running false flag operatons to discredit gamergate. I'm well aware that there's a lot of supposedly shady dealings with the big names of this dumb conspiracy, but , as someone who lives in America and is capable of seeing the surrounding culture, I'm much more inclined to agree with the side that says "there's a lot of sexism in video games" than the side that says "how dare you ever question the sanctity of video games and also by the way there's a bizarre and pointless conspiracy to turn manly video games into Georgia O'Keefe paintings because reasons, swallow this red pill." Plus the fact that gamergate was pretty much spawned by the corners of the Internet that have always been violently hostile to anything other than the white male neckbeard status quo of nerddom makes me feel pretty confident in dismissing them.

Oh yeah, and the fact that everytime I say boo about video games, I get a million angry emails, so yeah, I don't doubt that most of the death threats that your "liars and feminazis" are receiving are legit.

Also haha feminazi I can't believe you're using that term unironically


haha I know all this talk of fallacies really impresses the wonks over on Iron Chariots, but here in the real world of FURAFFINITY, we know that's a 15 year old's FUCK YOU MOM AND DAD I'M NOT GOING TO CHURCH talk.

You do grasp that GamerGate is a consumer revolt right? It is literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of individuals who have had enough of the gaming presses shit, coupled with the PROOF of their corruption in form of the game journo pros mailing list and their repeated, coordinated attacks on their own audience (putting their ideology before the consumer and then bashing said consumers for being... consumers, because capitalism is bad.... lmao). It is nebulous because it is unorganized. There is no leader, there is no power structure. The anti-gamergate people? They DO have leaders - all the SJWs and Feminists - Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian along with McIntosh, Chu, Cheong (who is an actual nazi... an ansian white supremacist nazi... go figure that one out), so their actions, such as this recent humiliating failure with their block bot, CAN be attirbuted to them. I keep hearing about all this supposed harassment, but frankly the ONLY thing that's happened was 2 people left their homes based on threats that weren't actually credible threats. Big. Fucking. Deal. People make anonymous threats on the internet all the time, you report them to the police and you move on with you life. Oh, wait, no, that's not what they did - they advertised it and then asked for monetary donations. They claimed that this was the proof of misogyny in gaming... but their argument for their vile, hateful actions from before any of this started hinged on the ASSERTION (baseless) that gaming and gamers were INHERENTLY misogynist.

Oh, and you'd have to account for #notyourshield. Rinanxa aka Socks is a pretty vocal supporter of GamerGate and she has a vagina. She's been called a sock puppet and a gender traitor and has been horribly harassed. GamerGate supporters and those who have remained neutral (which is really fucked up) have received scores of threats, including recently with the Twitter user The Gold Bat, who melted down after a female Dev on his staff quit when she received threats on her PERSONAL work account, which had an address only press and insiders had access to - so let that sink in for a second. People who don't want to get involved are being THREATENED to denounce GamerGate... but GamerGate is the hate mob. GaymerX - an organization for gay gamers, openly announced neutrality on the subject and were vicious attacked by the SJWs until they capitulated. But that wasn't enough, they had to issue a SECOND statement which used the EXACT language the SJWs and Feminazis demanded. Gay people, my people, caved in to fucking feminists. Because a woman has ever been dragged by the back of a truck and lashed to a fence post for just being who she was. Yeah, no.

And no, everything hasn't been attritubed to false flag operations - GNAA came out and publicly ADMITTED they are harassing both sides for the lols. They think gamers are fags and they hate SJWs and Feminists, so it's perfect for them. And by that logic, which is guilt by association (aka racist logic), any harassment gamergate supporters get is 100% proof of corruption and that SJWs and Feminists are evil and and need to be stopped. See, that hypocritical logic swings both ways, which is why guilt by association is RETARDED. You cannot blame a group, or even an individual, for the actions of another, especially if that 'other' is anonymous.

The fact that you're inclined to agree with a side that says "there's a lot of sexism in video games" just demonstrates your lack of critical thinking ability, because that's a claim and it needs to be PROVEN to be believed. Anita Sarkeesian is hated because she provides NO PROOF for her asserstions, she merely insists that they are true because in her ignorant mind, gamers are mostly men and games are mostly violent and therefore it is an unwelcoming space for women. Because stupid. Is the space unwelcoming for SOME people? Sure. There's a lot of uncontrolled little kids running around saying horrible shit and being annoying because they are stupid little kids. That can't be helped, and attacking both a community of people who have nothing to do with that AND trying to censor games like it has something to do with that behavior, is objectively evil.

There's no claiming there's a conspiracy - there IS a conspiracy, albeit an open one... which I guess makes it more of an agenda: DiGRA - if you actually read their papers, what they are and what their goal is and how deeply interconneted they are with the journalists and these SJW and Feminist personalities, it would be very, very clear they view games as repulsive little pro-capitalist, patriarchy enforcing tools that need to be changed because they ignorantly think media can influence people's behavior. It's right there on their website!

And getting a bunch of angry emails about video games when someone says something negative is COMMON. ANY critic receives backlash when shallow morons feel they are being PERSONALLY attacked when a game they like is criticized. Fan boys are disgusting; no one disagrees with that. They prevent improvements from happening because they view their publisher/franchise of choice to be special, which is stupid. And a legit death threat would be one that someone intends to carry out. Getting a fake threat that's intended to cause you distress is awful.... but public figures and celebrities get them all the time. It's just that the MAJORITY of those celebrities never PUBLICIZE them, on the advice of the authorities, because it makes the authorities job HARDER and it ENCOURAGES copy cats who want 15 mins of fame. These LiterallyWho's LOVE to broadcast anytime someone so much as rolls their eyes at them, because it makes them MONEY.

And you completely ignore the fact that negative reactions to criticism are PERFECTLY warranted if that criticism is UNJUSTIFIED or flat out FALSE! Everyone has an opinion, but they are NOT all equal. If you talk shit about something that you have zero understanding about, people who do know about it are going to go up one side of you and down another for daring to speak out of turn. That's the problem with people like Sarkeesian - she has publicly stated, on MULTIPLE occaisions how she will spend 8+ hours going through a game until she can find that one thing that helps support her narrative - hER OWN WORDS! You would think if sexism and misogyny were soooooo rampant in video games that it would be, i don't know, really EASY to find it?

All you have to do is watch her "criticism" of Hitman, and suddenly it becomes very obvious that not only doesn't she understand the story, the genre or the game itself, but that she's INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the facts to justify her position. This is called cherry picking, and it's essentially LYING. The last time I checked you didn't need to resort to fallacies and deceptions to demonstrate that something was true! There's this moron on the Verge that has criticized Shadows of Mordor and FarCry 4, not for ANYTHING to do with the game play or the appearance of the game or the narrative, but because of the VIOLENCE. The articles are written as though the game is REAL! And the author expresses confusion about why they enjoy such games despite them being so "vile". And the best part? The author openly admits to being completely IGNORANT of the genre, the subject matter of the games, or the background of the games. In Shadow of Mordor, it's High Fantasy which uses a Black and White morality system, and he whined about how the game promotes terrorism and torture. It was 2000 words of pseudo-intellectual self-masturbatory bullshit, and people eat that garbage up because they are too stupid (lacking critical thinking ability) or have been poisoned intellectually (nothing like a 101 level sociology course to make you think you understand all of life's problems! Never mind all your massive and varied biases!).

And sir, there is a difference between an egalitarian feminist and a supremacy feminist. The feminist like Suey Park who opnely bash white people and men for JUST being white and men ARE Feminazis. And I'll be blunt: If you disagree on that point, then you are a racist and sexist. Someones race and sex have NOTHING to do with the inherent goodness of badness, and Ms. Park is praised as being a very vocal and prominent Feminist, so guess what? A LOT of those SJWs and Feminists ARE racist and sexist (they try and change the definition to state that you can't be racist or sexist against a group that has an "inherent" advantage because academic feminists have been trying to that for years - historians won't let them because core disciplines have WAY more pull than soft disciplines thankfully). I wasn't aware that being white and having a penis got me any bonus points - I've lost out on plenty of things when competing with women and minorities, and never held it against them because I was simply willing to accept that they were MORE QUALIFIED.

And the 15 year old not going to church would be a smart thing, because there's better things you could be doing for 2 hours on a Sunday instead of being guilt tripped for natural sexual urges, told how much better off you'll be when you're dead (and how fucked all those people you don't like will be), how the world is going to end so that all that matters is that you obey an organization that's never been right about anything, and pay a large group of elderly pedophiles a 10% gross (not, net, if you tithe net you hate the baby jesus) of your yearly income in installations, all the while being taught that confirmation bias is the way in which reality should be judged. Any 15 year old that refuses to go to church is a higher form of human life. ;)

Hahah as a feminist and SJW, I had no clue that we had leaders, especially since I haven't heard of half of those supposed leaders and the other half are no-name video game dork faces who have no bearing on anything in the real world outside of hipster indie game circle jerks.

And sir, there is a difference between an egalitarian feminist and a supremacy feminist.

Every feminist since the suffragettes have been labeled as supremacy feminists by contemporaries, so I'm not surprised the trend continues.

The feminist like Suey Park who opnely bash white people and men for JUST being white and men ARE Feminazis. And I'll be blunt: If you disagree on that point, then you are a racist and sexist. Someones race and sex have NOTHING to do with the inherent goodness of badness, and Ms. Park is praised as being a very vocal and prominent Feminist, so guess what? A LOT of those SJWs and Feminists ARE racist and sexist (they try and change the definition to state that you can't be racist or sexist against a group that has an "inherent" advantage because academic feminists have been trying to that for years - historians won't let them because core disciplines have WAY more pull than soft disciplines thankfully). I wasn't aware that being white and having a penis got me any bonus points - I've lost out on plenty of things when competing with women and minorities, and never held it against them because I was simply willing to accept that they were MORE QUALIFIED.

They weren't kidding when they said privilege is invisible to the people who have it.

And the 15 year old not going to church would be a smart thing, because there's better things you could be doing for 2 hours on a Sunday instead of being guilt tripped for natural sexual urges, told how much better off you'll be when you're dead (and how fucked all those people you don't like will be), how the world is going to end so that all that matters is that you obey an organization that's never been right about anything, and pay a large group of elderly pedophiles a 10% gross (not, net, if you tithe net you hate the baby jesus) of your yearly income in installations, all the while being taught that confirmation bias is the way in which reality should be judged. Any 15 year old that refuses to go to church is a higher form of human life. ;)

2 EDGY 4 U

Really, so her apparent lack of privilege excuses her overt racism and sexism that she's spewed out in interviews and on twitter? I wasn't aware being a minority and a woman made you immune from hypocrisy.

Kinda rich coming from a men's rights activist like you.

Try human right's. Cause we don't all have some kind of "privilege". Cept for people in the 3rd world... they actually have problems. : /

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffff*inhale*fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff*orders a caramel macchiato*ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft

Can I have some of that coffee?

no. Coffee is bad for babies.

omg the oppression! No coffee, next it will be no pastries. This has to be the work of the pastriarchy! D:<

fucking YAWN. Come up with something original, you living stereotype.

Right. Back. At Ya.

Unrelated note: Your favorites are pretty awesome, though I am noticing a them of emasculation and feminization, not that there's anything wrong with that of course. The art styles are all very detailed, so great taste. You know, you could probably convince me you're right about everything if you'd just, say, give me some evidence?

yawn. Pseudopsychological bullshit. yawn.

yawn

Except you don't care because you are a damn pissbaby.

Such buzzwords. Much anger. And for what? You know, when people have, like, valid points to make, they can provide evidence, and don't have to resort to name calling. Just saying. But I can understand saltiness when figures who are held up as being "heroes" and "so brave" are plainly visible to anyone not willing to suspend disbelief as frauds and con-artists (and plagiarists, but like you said, who needs originality when you can just "appropriate" other people's work? greater good and all that). Oh look, starving children in africa, and actual oppression. Oh! And people actually doing something about it instead of crying on social media whenever someone is mean to them. And holy crap they're actually helping them instead of shoveling cash into their pockets! Then again if I'd duped $160k out of people I'd probably run around the internet saying and doing whatever I wanted to without a care. ;P

yawn

That was supposed to be @ Rinaxas ... didn't realize FA's system would do that.

This is really all pointless because in the end these things have to be addressed:

1) Gaming is not an unwelcoming space for women, because there is wide support for GamerGate BY women and there are multiple women in the INDUSTRY that have stated that they have never experienced sexism, harassment, or have been made to feel unwelcome. Why anyone would care who makes their games or who they're playing with or against is absolutely ridiculous. Gamers are consumers of a commodity - so long as the commodity is high quality and entertaining, that's all that matters. Until someone can prove this baseless assertion it should stop being treated like a fact by the media and then incestuously quoted as "proof" of this issue.

2) The sexism and misogyny angle is a co-opting of the accusations of corruption against journalists and their attempt to shift focus from their bad behavior. You may not like the kind of shit these people faced, and while I may be against harassment, frankly when you look at what they've done and who they REALLY are, they don't deserve sympathy. If you honestly believe having a vagina = a free pass from criticism and accountability, then there's no hope for you. Zoe Quinn caught the shit she did BECAUSE of her lies and manipulations. She is facing consequences for actions she took - that's called reality. The same thing is true for Sarkeesian, and I guess Wu, but honestly she was a nobody before this started and just came out in order to get fame and promote her game - the typical 'PR at any cost because it will increase profitability' gimmick. The subject of corruption has been PROVEN. Let me be 100% clear, the games journalists corruption has been PROVEN; and they do not care, they have stated as much. This means to deny it means you either have to openly deny the proof, demonstrating a complete disregard for reality, or embrace and openly declare an acceptance of corruption, which, for the record is what the journalists and SJWs and Feminists have done on Twitter.

I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not willing to label myself as pro-corruption. There's nothing wrong with taking a stand against corruption. And these peoples regressive, moralistic social agendas really have zero relevance to their corruption. It has to be addressed, and the sooner they reform their ethics and disclose their connections to one another, like they should have done from the beginning, the sooner this can end. I mean, they won't, of course, because they'll lose money and the Feminist agenda relies on the undisclosed relationships to make it appear an something other than propaganda. So, how about we be anti-corruption AND be like Adobe with the whole being against bullying and harassment too? I mean, unless you want to pretend the corruption doesn't exist (that would be hand waving fyi).

Yes. It is all pointless. You're throwing a hissy fit over a joke movie poster.
NOW I'm addressing your shitty behavior. I don't care who's pro or anti GG or whatever. If you're going to act like a fuckhead, you're going to get called on it.

And you, sir, are being a fuckhead.

I'm not being shitty! D: I'm just utterly gobsmacked at how easy it is for people to be convinced by a lack of evidence because someone makes disparaging remarks about a group that is historically looked down on. Like, the furry community should be skeptical as hell about "omg it's all about harassment and not ethics! these evil evil nerds!", because it wasn't terribly long ago CSI ran that furry episode and this community was getting trashed as shit in the media when it just wanted to be left alone. That's called scapegoating; target a group of people and then blame them for whatever problem you have, because people are biased against them. And it's really frustrating when people try to argue that anonymous trolls behaving badly online somehow excuses corruption in journalism, regardless of what kind of journalism (and this one happens to be in an $8 billion dollar industry!). To quote Xbro regarding histrionics and moral panic, "Anonymous trolls making you feel bad on the internet isn't going away anytime soon unfortunately, but that is not an excuse to target an entire culture of people who haven't done anything, just because it fits into an agenda and a narrative." The argument that GamerGate is nothing but a cyber hate mob is false because it's not a hate mob - it's a consumer revolt focused on expelling corrupt games journo's and their friends and financial connections from the industry, regardless of sex, and it's patently false because the corruption in games journalism has been proven. The fact that the anti-GG people stick there fingers in their ears and go "lalalala" or call those documented facts lies just goes to demonstrate there are a lot of dumb, crazy and truly dishonest people out there. Not of course to forget the legions of disinterested people and the gullible who are easily persuaded by calls to white knight someone. Ask Rolling Stone about "Jackie" lately and how that works out in the end.

... in short, you're being shitty.

The irony I just spotted is that we atheists make the complaint that the religious types try their best to make the DEFINITIONS of religion, god, or faith extremely nebulous, and yet the large majority of pro-GG types (atheist, anti-feminist, quite often other forms of bigoted including homophobic) are doing the same thing with Gamergate - making it conveniently nebulous, as you say here.

And Imp wonders why I said he needs to get those 745 sticks out of his ass.

You sound an awful lot like an Atheism+(er)... you know, the hijacked, discredited, dead community of hand holders that "didn't want to offend anyone" and wanted to make the conversation less about promoting logic and evidence-based reasoning and more about how hard it was to be a woman (because a non-belief position in a deity and thus opposing any decisions or policies made based on said beliefs has anything to do with sex or gender) in an intellectual battle for education and human progress (the entire reason for publicly discussing Atheism... It's not popular to be an atheist you know, being the least trusted sort of people in the U.S. at any rate.

Also no, I'm not an Atheism+ person. Atheism+ is full of racists and bigots like you :0

I'm not sure why people think Dawkins is best atheist. Bill Nye and Adam Savage do much better jobs at being atheist AND not being assholes

Idk, the late Richard Hitchins was so good about going right after the most holy of hollies. So glad he took down that fraud Mother Teresa... I was so frustrated when I actually read her history and what people in the region had to say about her and her "charity"... Another ideologue that loved the ideas of suffering and death (actually extremely catholic so she's right on the money) and focused all her time and energy on preventing abortion. Loved it when she got a Nobel Peace Prize, because reasons, and then said the greatest obstacle to world peace was abortion. Had someone said that today the media would have exploded lol.

From one atheist to another, PLEASE STOP TALKING.

I'm sorry but if people want to impose a belief in santa claus on someone and argue that things like evolution shouldn't be taught in schools simply because it contradicts their belief in santa claus, their feelings deserve to be hurt.

Careful guys, we got a real badass here!

AND IT'S A SHINY :0
(throws an ultra ball)

Says everyone when they have no actual reasonable reply. Seriously, I'm confused. Do you like or dislike AS, or do you not care? I can't tell if you're trolling or what! >_> Not enough hours logged on the internet I guess.

Oh my god no one cares about that old drunk and his hate boner for a dead nun. Except for self-important teenagers who think they're totally blowing everyone's minds when they come to the earth-shattering realization that religion is fake.

The whole point of Twitter is for narcissists to throw petulant little hissy fits.

More seriously, though, remember when Dawkins was a scholar on the level of Carl Sagan, rather than a grumpy old git moaning about Snow White and his train running late?

Hi. I'm a less... 'passionate' (to phrase the others reaction in a kind way) individual who has actually been following it quite closely since before gamergate was even coined. The "it seems pretty suspicious that nobody cared until" timing thing is kind of off. We all knew that games 'journalism' was shit, this much is true. But the whole quinn thing only served as a catalyst, pure and simple. The widespread censorship and quashing of discussion as a reaction to the event was what got people pissed. The dozen "gamers are dead" articles that sprang up over the course of one day, almost a retaliation to outcry, that's when people got pissed. I will agree with you, the initial fact that Naython Grayson gave positive coverage and promotion of a friend (who later became romantically involved with) without disclosing that fact as he should have was not massive thing. The attacks on gamer culture that followed, the authoritarian censorship around discussion of the topic made people curious, made them dig more, and they found more, and at any point, the guilty parties could have admitted wrongdoing, but instead they would only attack harder. Everyone involved just streisanded the issue time and again and gave the mob more incentive to look into what was going on. If you honestly think the tens of thousands of people would spend 3 solid months of their time and effort, along with $115k in charitable donations, just to throw a hissy fit that some random dev cheated on her boyfriend, I would love to see the thought process that reconciles that absurdity with reality. Or would you be willing to think that a well documented clique of friends, associates and like-minded people are using ad hominem to discredit a group who threaten their job security and hold them to standards they don't want to live up to. I am a sex-positive, progressive individual, I love videogames and want to see them do better, I feel that the mess that is games journalism needs to be cleaned up as part of that. Again, yes "everyone knows" the press is a joke, why is it bad that people finally pulled their thumbs out of their asses and did something about it?

At this point it's more about IndieCade, the IGF and the fraud being routinely committed by a group of people who are all, as it would seem, interlinked by real life friendships and parent companies or corporate connections. ZQ aka Locke Valentine aka Chelsea Van Valkenburg is a psycho, a user and a whore - she has ZERO credibility, talent and honestly no more relevance. Brianna Wu is just an opportunistic professional victim who used this issue to promoter herself, her company and her game (money and daddy gave her $200k to start her company, so I wonder why she would be so desperate for attention and money... oh, cause the game is mediocre and it uses all the same tropes she "railed" against. As for Sarkeesian... She and #FullMcIntosh are very dangerous in regards to the constant battle against censorship. That and they're bullies and liars.

I can't bring myself to care about video games, sorry :(

That's fine, but if you invoke relative privations to say it doesn't matter in general, then you'd be wrong (as that is a fallacy). You might not care, but that doesn't have any bearing on the situation. Plus, this isn't about video games; it's about ethics, corruption and censorship. If we, as a society, allow fear and hate mongers to influence society and masquerade as agents of "justice" we will literally set ourselves up for some very nasty shit down the line.

A fallacy, huh? Would that be...A LOGICAL FALLACY?

And you are by no means required to. :)
The problem here is that we picked a fight with journalists and PR people, and well, they control the message getting out to people who are not involved in gaming culture to that degree. It might sound absurd, but you have pretty much been lied to (or intentionally mislead, whatever way you want to phrase it) about the nature of what is going on. I would have found that thought a little hard to swallow until I found myself on the "wrong side" of the narrative they were pushing.

uhhhh

I hope I'm not offending you by saying this, but please, consider coprophagia. Thank you!

Okay, first, fuck off. Second, see how your type is RUINING secularism.
http://mic.com/articles/107164/why-.....ampaign=social

Goddam son, you need to chill out, it's been like a week, and I'm pretty sure I'd finished with you. Take the stick out, or at least change it something shorter, perhaps more pleasantly curved, and potentially with multi-speed vibrating functionality. I've no desire to keep beating a dead horse with you when you have already expressed adherence to ideology and dogma over absolute reason. We'll never agree to anything because you don't live in reality. And lastly, do not, EVER defend Islam. It is the single most disgusting, oppressive religion to ever grace the Earth's surface and is responsible for the most retarded levels of mass murder and violence, all because of strict adherence to an ideology. I'm talking about the muslims who kill other muslims here; political stuff aside they are literally committing mass murder and genocide over a work of FICTION (and a plagiarized one at that). No one is ruining secularism; secularism is just having to stand up for itself as religions become militant in their dying gasp to cling to existence. And a blog post? Really? That is your argument? Wow. Confirmed Teen. FYI, I signed the petition to have Justin Beiber deported back to Canada too. ;D

Please stop bothering me, I don't care about your feelings, at all.

Really it's about ethics in crappy tv movie writing.

Well, there's the fact the FTC has taken note of Gawker Media breaking the law (now if only something could be done about Sam Biddle and his pro-bullying diatribes), and them swiftly changing their set up to reveal just how much of their advertising was hidden (something like 7:1). Then there's the entire contents of the gamejournopros mailing list that, surprisingly, people who blindly believe the baseless, evidence-less rhetoric of anti-gamergate haven't read and pretend doesn't exist (the emails that proved collusion between competitors, blacklisting and a social agenda revolving around censorship and hyper-left wing fundamentalism... so much for being a moderate today). Oh and then this just happened, http://theralphretort.com/december-.....mes-gamergate/ Because it's totally just about hating women and being misogynistic. Because Jack Thompson totally didn't get disbarred for making all these same salacious, false arguments 10 years ago.

But meh, If someone is willing to buy into something without researching it first, or the people around it, they'll believe ANYTHING, and frankly, as a species whose only advantage is an intellect, it doesn't mark them as very successful. Oh well, eventually gamers will get back to just being able to play games in peace, and people will stop repeating the lies that allowing free speech in art somehow encourages violence... when it has been scientifically proven to NOT do that.

The fact that Gamergate has suddenly embraced Jack Thompson, a lunatic who literally petitioned to get video games exempted from free speech protections, as a kindred spirit in the fight against a woman who makes complainy YouTube videos says a lot about the movement.

That is a blatant lie, and not unsurprising from someone who supports anti-GG. GamerGate does not support Jack Thompson - it is making direct parallels to tweets being made by Jonathan McIntosh, the writer and producer for Anita Sarkeesian, who has claimed that games like GTA V are "repugnant and misogynistic". Sure they are, if you're 12 and ignore the fact that the majority of "violence" (there's no violence, it's not real) in the game is aimed at men. The only people attacking games and free speech are the press, and trying to hand wave it is ridiculous. The gaming press and these people with whom they had incestuous financial relationships and undisclosed friendships (all proven mind you) pushed a narrative that gaming was a pathetic culture and gamers were gross, toxic people who really shouldn't exist.

Because a dumpy bint who can't dress herself, with a 2 year B.A. in acting, is somehow qualified to be a writer on any subject, call herself a pop culture critic and thinks it's ok to stand up on a stage and self-aggrandize while talking about how she doesn't believe in ethics (Leigh Alexander). Add on the fact that the SJW crowd seems to think games have some kind of "ethical responsibility" as an art form, and you start to see the crazy train in full outline. Games are an entertainment product - they are utilitarian consumer goods. They can be art, but if Indie people think they're going to get rich with trip-wire narrative walking simulators like Gone Home, they're dead wrong.

Also, you might find these illuminating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss - interview with Brianna Wu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=098t08Ow6TQ - interview with Arthur Chu (about interview with Brianna Wu)

Yup, these people are totally coherent, logical, rational and in the case LiterallyWu, not shilling for herself (I mean, you flee from a false threat against you and then tell everyone where you are via social media? Ok, that makes sense. Oh, hey, how about her claim to know "all the women in the industry"... yeah no. And I'm also sure someone who received $200,000 from her mommy and daddy to start her company and claimed that "taught her more than any schooling" is really in touch with what it's like to struggle and work hard. And of course she took the opportunity to Shill, and Shill HARD for her recent game (which used all the 'tropes' she openly decried because hypocrisy ftw). Professional Victim = $$$$$$$$.

Sorry, I got the impression you supporting anti-GG... 3rd Wave Feminism and Keyboard SJWs make the world a worse place -_-

I notice "3rd wave feminism" is the hot new bogeyman, but somehow most people talking about it don't seem to know what it is.

I'm using it in the context to distinguish it from the noble Suffragettes and the rambunctious bra burners and free lovers of the sexual revolution. There is a HUGE difference between egalitarianism and supremacy, and as Hermione put it to the UN, "when I say feminism I don't mean man-hating". The fact she had to make that distinction to the WORLD is pretty telling.

I should have said, "Sex-negative Gender Feminism" - aka the pseudo-academic branch of sociology drop outs that think any kind of non-normative sex is tantamount to rape against women (I met a pup play guy in full kit at a gay fetish bar party who was SUPPORTING this kind of feminism... -100 for total lack of self awareness and add a bonus multiplier of X100 for unintentional irony).

I have no problem with people who advocate for egalitarian equality for all and don't feel the need to lie about our cherry pick statistics and other info to demonstrate their point. I'm not just a furvert, I'm also an academic and this kind of stuff eats at me like gangrene. :(

But are you enlightened by your own intelligence?

Compared to most people? Extremely so. ;)

Clearly not if he requires an emote to tell if a comment is a joke.

Well, text doesn't convey tone of voice, and since you don't have Hemmingway after your name, your text didn't convey enough emotion to provide any context. And given the previous tone of the first people to reply to my original comment, it appeared I was being attacked. : /

You weren't in the first place. I was making fun of the whole thing with my attempt at a tag line.
You read into it. It's your damn fault you look like an idiot.

I don't look like anything - I have convictions and I believe in truth above all else, and while everything and anything can, and should, be made fun of - there is a huge difference between joking about something and trivializing it. I'm perfectly fine with off color holocaust jokes so long as they're not being made to openly disparage Jews or minimalism how bad that event was; everything has a funny angle after all. Now it's your turn to take a chill pill captain defensive.

Says the one who went on the aggressive defense when I posted a damn joke.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! You confuse passion for anger.

(edit) I've been where you ARE right now, and that's not passion. It's anger. It's frustration. It's teen angst and a hatred of the vagina, as your own profile makes clear ("even if it's on a gorgeous man," but you still make it clear you're disgusted by the concept of a womb).
The funny thing is, I know you're CONVINCING yourself that you're only trolling, but considering how much fuel you're giving us with your own words and profile, your words and the inability to tell a joke betray you.

Teen angst isn't something I've experienced in quite a few years... I'm almost 30 O_o I'm starting to wish I had an age filter for these kinds of sites though. And I'm not trolling... the fact that everyone on the internet automatically assumes that someone who disagrees with them is trolling is incredibly disturbing. Of course you're the one that's refusing to look at things like evidence and to fact check and yet claims to be an atheist, yet reserves skepticism only for those things that fit into your personal ideology. Listen and Believe indeed; having just got back from vacation, I was pleased to see just how well suspension of the idea of presumed innocence worked out for Rolling Stone. Keep telling yourself you're "really liberal and open-minded" though, despite the fact that what you perceive to be the mainstream opinion appears to be terribly important to you. You know, that and standing up for people who are racists and sexist and totally hypocritical. I mean, it's not like hypocrisy isn't one of the biggest reasons to reject theism in the first place.

Stop talking about atheism, no one cares about your edgy crusade against bronze age superstition.

You know what I've come to realize upon reflection? You can, should and are entitled to believe whatever you want to. It's your life after all. Nor do I care about anyone else's opinion and arguing on the internet is pointless. Do/Think/Feel what you want.

And yet here you are. Still replying. Still predictable. Still so damn boring. You're not worth the counter-trolling.

he doesn't try to reason with people as much as he just bludgeons them with words words words words words

Considering (looking at their gallery page) Imp's a white male who considers Fight Club to be their favorite movie, has atheist leanings that are more nu-atheist than vanilla atheism (read: Dawkins-esque bigotry towards the religious versus just plainly lacking belief), and is the mirror of the extremist portrayal of a "man-hating" lesbian, you might as well ease off. Your "opponent" in this battle of wits is pretty much a member of r/MensRightsActivism

Pardon me, there's nothing bigoted about eschewing superstition for fact. People who cling to the teaching of a book that is 90% forgeries and 10% contradictions aren't to be taken serious, nor should they be allowed to make laws. Study some history and you'll see that religion has accomplished nothing save to hold mankind back, inflict horrible suffering while promoting the wealth and power of an extreme minority, and the only reason that the enlightenment was able to happen in the first place was the fragmenting of Christianity into multiple sects and a loss of intellectual hegemony. As soon as dogmatic principles no longer bound what people could theorize about the world, humanity took off like a shot. The fact that in the last century alone we've accomplished more than the entire time our species has been civilized is pretty telling - this last century is also the most secular period in history and there's a growing push with academia to think of this as the "post-christian" era.

"Nu-atheism", I have to admit, that's cute, I honestly haven't heard that. There are two states with theistic belief: Theism and Atheism. Now, theism has various steps on it's way to Atheism (the default position for life before indoctrination), but there's also the Gnostic and Agnostic positions, which are "to have knowledge" and "to be without knowledge". People fall into a configuration of these positions - Theists, through a position of faith, claim Gnosis, and some claim Agnosis (although that is VERY bizarre because it acknowledges belief without any reason to do so whereas at least faith makes a grasp at it). Atheists can claim the same positions, but it's a reverse dichotomy, that is, to claim knowledge that there is no god/s is absolute ludicrous as you can't possibly prove that.

Live and let live would be fine, if religious people weren't commanded by their religion to proselytize and weren't constantly trying to impose their baseless beliefs on others via laws and other violations of civil liberties, hence Atheists have a responsibility to take the wind out of their sails when Theist Apologists try and impose their objective morality on others. Living in reality isn't bigotry, and neither is hurting someone's feelings because they choose to believe in Santa Claus just because someone told them to and then use that belief as a justification for whatever actions they choose to take.

And yes, I love fight club for all the little hidden nuances, edward norton's narration and sarcasm, helena bonham-carter's craziness, and brad pitt's charisma. Anyone who thinks that movie is "just about fighting"... well, I'm sorry but lacks any semblance of critical thinking; the fighting is a mockery of the self-pity in conventional therapy, and the author of the original story wrote that story in order to be as shocking as possible, since his previous work, "Invisible Monsters", was turned down for publication and he wanted to get back at his publishers, which ironically loved Fight Club. I happen to be a cinema buff, on top of a historian and an academic. Go figure that, a fan of the furry subculture has an education and an interest in the nuances in culture. :O

And no, I'm not a "men's rights activist", although I've read up on them and they appear to be much of what militant feminists are (i.e. feminazi's), that is, people who have been victims of abuse, and rather than get professional help to deal with it, have chose to adopt a stance that there is some kind of systemic problem with the world and people. The victim triangle is a BAD thing, except in both of these groups, where it becomes the model for a "brave" person. It's very, very warped. And I'm gay, and as such am completely and utterly ambivalent towards women, at least when it comes to what "feel" they should be doing with their lives. I can't comprehend why anyone thinks women should be doing ANYTHING other than what they want. If they want to go to school? Fine. Work? Fine. Be a mother? Fine. It really doesn't matter - having a vagina doesn't have any meaningful impact on their ability to do a job; it never has.

The notion that women are "supposed" to be homemakers is simply an ignorant view held by traditionalists based off the fact that, prior to the creation of milk replacer and/or the availability of wet nurses, women had to spend their time nursing their young. And since infant morality was staggeringly high in the past and birth control was nonexistent, married women were pregnant, a lot. If you're going to stay home and tend to the children, then cooking and cleaning and all that other crap only makes sense. Of course it was also expected of women who were WITHOUT children to be assisting elsewhere, especially if they weren't married. Field work was common, as was any task that didn't demand a high degree of physical strength and endurance. But this is simply the result of our biological make up and it's advantages and disadvantages relative to certain tasks with regards to the societal make up those people lived in. When people actually stop, critically analyze the past and DON'T project their own bias into the past (historian's bias) then you can calmly understand why views are held and address why certain interpretations of the events that create those views may or may not be valid.

Jesus Christ, shut up

"Nu-atheism", I have to admit, that's cute, I honestly haven't heard that. There are two states with theistic belief: Theism and Atheism. Now, theism has various steps on it's way to Atheism (the default position for life before indoctrination), but there's also the Gnostic and Agnostic positions, which are "to have knowledge" and "to be without knowledge". People fall into a configuration of these positions - Theists, through a position of faith, claim Gnosis, and some claim Agnosis (although that is VERY bizarre because it acknowledges belief without any reason to do so whereas at least faith makes a grasp at it). Atheists can claim the same positions, but it's a reverse dichotomy, that is, to claim knowledge that there is no god/s is absolute ludicrous as you can't possibly prove that.

Gosh, Matt Dillahunty, thanks for the semantics lesson!

Loud atheist, loves Fight Club, dresses as the Joker for halloween.... At this point, you're just missing the blog that says WELCOME TO MY TWISTED WORLD in the header and a NIN quote in your signature.

Actually I've only ever heard of Matt Dillahunty in the terms that he was a former Atheism+ supporter until he got slapped in the face for claiming there was no hypocrisy and abuse on the freethoughtblog webrings and then experiencing that precise hypocrisy and abuse. He's part of a public access television show based out of Texas and he's a professional speaker. I've never met him and I don't know anything about him personally. Do you have any examples of why he should be criticized other than you dislike of his personality? Because frankly as I've already established feelings don't matter. Also I don't listen to NIN and where is "welcome to my twisted world" from? Is it an album of theirs or just some internet cliche?

I meant you were like Dillahunty in that you never shut up and you feel compelled to explain in depth all the things that no one ever asked about.

...Actually I'm pretty that's his job on the show. That's all their jobs. They get callers who ask questions or make claims and they refute them. That's how you combat theism, through logical refutation. They are professional atheist apologists. I'm starting to get the impression you're not very informed...

Oh my god, you're still explaining, it's like you have some sort of disease.

If you don't care about honesty and intellectual parity just SAY so. You can believe whatever you like, but claiming assertions as facts is just awful. Also, your latest pic is neat, so on that unrelated note, do you have anyone who you draw inspiration from for your style, or is it entirely your own?

I'm all me, baby!

All politics aside now, did you teach yourself to draw or have you been to school for it? I honestly haven't seen anything like your style elsewhere, although some of it is reminiscent of the "grotesque" style (with dramatic proportions), although that tended to be found more so in literary descriptions of things.

And yes, I love fight club for all the little hidden nuances, edward norton's narration and sarcasm, helena bonham-carter's craziness, and brad pitt's charisma. Anyone who thinks that movie is "just about fighting"... well, I'm sorry but lacks any semblance of critical thinking; the fighting is a mockery of the self-pity in conventional therapy, and the author of the original story wrote that story in order to be as shocking as possible, since his previous work, "Invisible Monsters", was turned down for publication and he wanted to get back at his publishers, which ironically loved Fight Club. I happen to be a cinema buff, on top of a historian and an academic. Go figure that, a fan of the furry subculture has an education and an interest in the nuances in culture.

I love this quote. I hope you come back when you turn 20 and reread that, so you can understand why this is so hilarious.

I reread Fight Club (book's better than the movie) a while back and, honestly, what a lot of these fanboys don't see when they try to knock "conventional" methods of self-help is that the narrator is unnamed in both movie and book and that it's not so much about trying to be "as shocking as possible," but to force an identity into existence that's truly independent of consumerism. What really happens (or so I think) is that the narrator created an id that thinks it's a superego.

So in short the whole damn thing being glorified is just base instincts that trash fanboys already act on

Your historian's bias is STAGGERING, which isn't uncommon for someone ignorant of the proper study of history. I wasn't "trashing" modern therapy. Modern Therapy is fine. The fact that you take a work of fiction LITERALLY, is telling of how disturbed your mind set is. Author's use complex characters and metaphors to explore ideas as wells create entertaining stories... I keep forgetting the furry community is made up of children with more... rarefied tastes, and that these themselves are telling of those individuals reasoning powers.

And your reading is incorrect - the "narrator" is representative of the "every man", which is convenient for a reader to related to, but also to represent how boring and empty people trapped in consumer culture can become. The narrator has come to define his life and his happiness, but everything he owns, trying to fit a model of expectation that was never his own. He creates an alter ego, based on the mental stress from his insomnia, to act out his suppressed fantasies. The two collide when the narrator encounters Marla Singer and experiences the cognitive dissonance of both hating her and sexual desiring her. He wants to get rid of her, but also wants to obtain her. This compels "Tyler Durden" to manifest to the narrator and eventually enables him to achieve his repressed sexual desires with Marla. This is all, of course, a deluded form of escapism for the narrator, culminating in his eventual self-confrontation and recognition that HE is responsible for everything Tyler has done and accepts that it IS in fact what he wanted all along. And I'm not terribly surprised you like the book better... the ending is an ambiguous cop out that leaves it both unresolved and unsatisfied, which fits in with the authors intention. The movie on the other hand shows "Tyler" accepting himself fully, discarding his alter ego (by realizing it was his true ego all along), and reaching out to hold Marla's hand as they watch the financial buildings collapse in the distance all to that killer song, "Out of my Mind".

You know, if you'd stop being mean and condescending then I would be too, there's little difference between us than our opinion on matters. I will say I find it curious that you have a problem with "base instincts" though, we are, after all, only animals. Hell, this is a FURRY website, aren't a lot of people on here trying to connect with something more primal? ;)

you love explaining things so much, it's adorable

So I take it you haven't read the book or seen the movie, or read the author's bio or his discussion on his inspiration or meaning? I'll take an argument from ignorance for $600 Alex. Good day.

wait, what book or movie are we talkig about now? FA's nesting stem is confusing me.

The moment you, a man, refer to feminists as feminazis and mean it sincerely, you accept the label of MRA.

The moment you, a whatever-you-are, think that there is only one kind of feminism and that it's all entirely above board, is the moment you acknowledge a complete and utter lack of intellectual parity. Go read up the works of Amanda Marcotte, a raving lunatic and a "feminist" paragon. There is a difference between "equality" and "supremacy", and there is a huge difference between crying about "privilege" and "white guilt" and all that other garbage people spew when they have nothing but emotional non-arguments to make. There are no broad generalizations to make about complex issues, and the fact that you honestly think that there's no such thing as "sex-negative gender feminists" just tells me you're drinking the kool-aid. Either you'll wake up and come to realize that facts and evidence and logic and reason are the currency of honesty, or you won't, in which case I, or any other reasoned person for that matter, won't give two hoots about what you think. I just came back from a lovely vacation, otherwise I would have replied sooner. Also, I really, really don't care about how hard life has been for you, or whomever you may or may not want to white knight; it's hard for us all.

buddy, you can pull as many facts out of your ass as you want, you're still rambling about boring inside baseball atheism pissing contests that no one in the real world gives two shits about like a smug teenager.

Somebody sounds a little salty with the ad hominums. I think we have a believer. Nothing technically wrong with that, just so long as you're not starting wars or blowing things up or mutilating genitals. >_>

ad hominums

hahahah

oh my god

I like how I make fun of you for your atheist buzzwords and you respond with more atheist buzzwords



If anything makes me believe in God, it's my desire not to be associated with self-important blowhard gamergaters like you. I know you're very impressed with your own big fat brain, but you should stop talking. Unlike atheism and video games, this is a womyn friendly space!

ALSO I LOVE MUTILATING GENITALS

Ad hominum isn't a buzz word, it's a fallacious argument that uses a personal attack when someone can't counter a logical argument (logic, when not relying on fallacies or false premises describes reality and defines truth). That's like, intro to logic and argumentation. Shitlord, pissbaby, etc. those are buzzwords. And womyn? My how 90's! And I have no idea why you'd believe in a sky daddy because of someone who supports ethics reforms in games journalism, and now ALL journalism because of how the mainstream media handled the issue (like repeating the same lies over and over and over again... then again Fox News DID win the right to lie on national television in that Florida lawsuit...).

Okay, first off, it's called ad hominem. Not ad hominum.
You deserve every bit of yawning and being called a pissbaby. You're boring and seriously the biggest complainer about a joke. It's clear you just want the attention. Not sure why. Please suck someone else's teat.

Yes, I know what an ad hominum is. You don't seem to be hearing me.

WHO DOESN'T??? :'D

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

Okay, first off, I WAS MAKING A JOKE. Get those 745 sticks out of your butt.

WHERE WAS YOUR EMOTE?! D:< Without emoji I am lost in the nuances of internet text communication. Please help me, I am like the Helen Keller of message boards, I need you to break the communication barrier. :*(

Also those sticks help me stay upright. hehehe

" ManEater Series "!?... Holy craps ! It's not a joke ! @_@

Mm-mm. Love me some SyFy.

It's so bad but I love it so much XD

This sums up my reaction to Gamergate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVHpnixj88

the GGer really needs to take a nap or get his diaper changed.

is he still going on?

YES

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/content/i.....mj-popcorn.gif

Unrelated note: Your favorites are pretty awesome, though I am noticing a them of emasculation and feminization, not that there's anything wrong with that of course. The art styles are all very detailed, so great taste. You know, you could probably convince me you're right about everything if you'd just, say, give me some evidence? - Impmon12345

Okay, you know what?
You're an outright misogynist and a goddamn piece of work for a gay man. Your picking through my favorites to try and demean my being someone with a penis who likes cute men who may or may not be wearing dresses or lingerie just shows how much you have to reach to find something to bolster your anti-feminist views.
You type as if all feminization is forced - the stuff I like is CONSENSUAL. You use "emasculation" as if masculinity is something to actually be fucking treasured or held tightly to.
You seriously weak-minded dudebro. Your being gay does not begin to hide the fact that you think women are trash. That you feel that those who are labeled by society as men aren't allowed to wear pretty and lacy things. That gender roles are strict.

I mean holy shit, you're the type of person who would introduce themselves as "My name is not important, but my mission is" or however HATRED is opened in the trailer. Rex is right to call you out for your delayed edgy teen angst hypermale bullshit.

And you spammed this fucking much, BECAUSE OF A GOD DAMN JOKE. You are the absolute definition of a stereotype. Your views are weak at best and I'm pretty fucking sure no one cares for your opinion in real life so here the fuck you are.

Full disclosure - I also willingly partake in cute outfits from time to time. I'm not the prettiest but it's fun, and NO, feminization or sissification doesn't play a key role. I am genderqueer, and I accept that I won't fit in one or the other all the time, so don't fucking bother commenting with a justification for your misogyny or your attempts at folk psychology.

You can wear whatever you damn please as long as it makes you happy and you aren't going to get arrested walking down the street because some part or another comes hanging out. Why on EARTH would you assume I have issues with expressing oneself, particularly sexually? This is a FURRY webstie (arguably THE furry website)... like, the bulk of what is on here is porn, and even the tamest stuff is by definition non-normative. I have a problem with people who peddle CENSORSHIP and LIES to shamelessly self promote.

And I'm also kind of a vicious bitch when I feel insulted...

This guys has some unfortunate notions about gender rigidity.

quite.

No, I don't. I happen to enjoy fetish parties. How about you go read some of the articles from the mainstream voices of "Feminism" as lauded by MSNBC (which I've come to realize is as bad as Faux News). Maybe take a little look through the work of Amanda Marcotte. I think people have EVERY right to express themselves sexually. Feminists on the other hand? Quite the opposite. And yes, I'm excluding the egalitarian feminists, because they're too busy actually helping women in the third world, and not crying on tumblr.

Didn't... you attack my enjoyment of the movie Fight Club for the exact same reason. I'm contacting Merriam-Webster on your behalf, because sir, they appear to have left the entries for "hypocrite" and "double standard" out of your copy, much to your detriment.

You also project WAY too much. I was simply noting that you enjoy submissive, feminized males and that I was slightly suspicious that this might bias you to be more deferential to dominant, female personalities. Whether that's accurate or not only you know. And why do you say "cute" instead of "sexy" or any other descriptor? Just curious.

And you seem to be a little confused about 3rd wave feminism's official stance on the subject of things like FemDom and kink in general - when women engage in dom/sub play, even if dom, they're just "imitating men apparently" (if that's not some hard core anti-female sexual empowerment I don't know what is. Why do these people hate the sexual revolution so much?) and kink in any form is damaging to women and encourages violence against them - even when no women are involved. Because logic. Hell, gay men are supposedly particularly misogynistic because they "choose" to eschew the female and take a male partner to fulfill that role (that one is the cherry-flavor of crazy). But when you start actually projecting a feminized persona in a homosexual sex? Oh, that's just like the holocaust to some of these poor, oppressed feminists. Now you've really gone and hurt their feelings, because your naturally inclined love of your own sex has anything to do with them (the typical narcissism of the professional victim is demonstrated in this example).

And I spammed? You continued to be inflammatory and make baseless assertions to the tune of "these people said this happened to them, therefore it must have!". Where is your evidence? Your proof? You talk a big talk about being an atheist and all that jazz, but you're doing nothing but a whole lot of "listening and believing" and you have been from the beginning. And you know what? I'd be willing to bet you don't even like video games, and if that were true, you wouldn't even have a horse in the race to begin with! Unless of course, ideology is what matters most.

Now can you stop? I was truly sincere about the art you had favorited. I think I +watch'd one of two them. Clean, professional art styles are quite nice, regardless of subject material.

Dude, I understand that you've heard the term "third-wave feminism" thrown around as a catch-all bogeyman by gamergaters and 4channers and whatnot, but third wave is generally a lot more sex positive than second wave. Just from Wikipedia's definition, "Third Wave feminists have broadened their goals, focusing on ideas like queer theory, abolishing gender role expectations and stereotypes, and defending sex work, pornography, reproductive rights, and sex-positivity."

It's a huge and very diverse movement with lots of different ideas and branches that often contradict each other, but the far out ideas about lesbian separatism, all penetrative sex being equivalent to rape, and male homosexuality being a rejection of women were all first floated by Andrea Dworkin-esque extremist factions of the SECOND WAVE back in the 70s and have pretty much completely fallen out of vogue by the time of the third wave.

Seriously. Stop quoting Wikipedia. It is not a credible source, for anything. Anyone can edit it - *I* have edited it. You honestly don't think there's a huge problem with a branch of "modern" feminism? I invite you to read the works of Amanda Marcotte, who likes to claim that there is "no such thing as a false rape claim" (oh really Ms. Marcotte? She is clearly insane, or stupid, and yet people act like she's got some deep insight). How about MSNBC's coverage of Rolling Stone's screw up with the U-Va. story? Or the Duke Lacrosse team story? They rushed to judgment, both times, then refused to take ownership for essentially joining a lynch mob, and then had the nerve to prattle on national television about how "the entire episode just goes to show you how much our society hates women." ... WHAT?! Really, that was their take away from a couple of liar psychopaths out to make money... hell, the one from the Duke case later stabbed her fking boyfriend to death and is now serving 20 years in prison. But she's just SO brave. Look at the line up of women being interviewed for online journals, newspapers and television shows. These are the people who say that porn is harmful to women because it's exploitative (except when it's arbitrarily not). These are the women who claim that FemDom, arguably the pinnacle of female sexual dominant expression, is actually just a woman imitating a man (a fallacious argument because it never tries to even explain what a woman's dominant sexual role WOULD be) and that the submissive male is just "topping from the bottom". Please look at the talk page of anything you read on wikipedia - you'll likely see fighting. And any social topic on which "Ryulong" has had a hand you can completely disregard as biased - he/she/it will make openly fallacious arguments and straight up lies in defending his/her/its edit wars. This is because Ryulong is an ideologue. Ryulong doesn't care about what reality is, because reality is going to conform to Ryulong's persepctive. If the facts don't fit the theory? Fuck the facts. The end justifies the means, after all. Ugh. Nothing is "right" simply because anyone believes it to be. It's "right" because it can be demonstrated to be so, without having to lie or resort to sophistry.

Why are feminists anywhere near queer theory? I don't recall the gay community asking straight women for social commentary on how gay men or lesbians for that matter might better sort themselves out in this world. Empowerment comes from within, not without. And let me tell you, the SJWs who have co-opted feminism (to be fair when I'm talking about 3rd wave feminism THEY are who I'm referring to in all earnest)? Their idea of diversity is primarily hair color it seems. The gay community, outside of urban centers that promote stereotypical behavior as a hallmark of "queer culture" (a falsetto voice and exaggerated mannerisms isn't a way of life, it's social peacocking, and let me tell you, when those guys get put on the spot, they get some base in their voice pretty quickly. Life is not a 24 hour pageant... at least not for people who don't think that one element of who they are; sex, gender, weight, height, sexuality, fetish, etc defines them in their entirety. I find myself amused at how I'm labeled "white" (and it's a pejorative!) and yet my Irish and German heritage are utterly dismissed. Never mind the Famine that was willfully ignored by the English as an act of genocide by inaction, or the fact that they were treated no better than any other foreigner when they arrived in America. My German ancestors didn't have it so bad fortunately, they just stayed put until shit got dicey after world war I. The point is - these people are quick to diminish every other characteristic a person might have to just whether or not they have a penis or a vagina, or an XX or XY chromosome pairing, and it's insane to think that people can be simplified and generalized about in such a manner.

You might also take not that when... umm.. emma watson? I think that's her name, it's late and I can't be bothered to google it... Hermione, the actress who played her. WHen she gave her speech to the U.N. one of the first things to come out of her mouth was to draw a clear distinction between what she was peddling, equity feminism, and not "man hating". Now why on Earth would she bother to make that distinction at all in the first place, if there weren't some very vocal people running around giving off that impression? They're not hard to find. They're proud of how radical they are. They're also usually found talking about how much they hate capitalism and other things that make me unable to determine if I want to laugh or cry.

Like I said, I'm all Human Rights, and total sexual liberty (well, no hurting anyone unless it's safe-word-consensual-stuff... not my place to police anyone's bedroom, but try not to kill each other) and equality for everyone. What I can't abide are people who peddle hypocrisy, lies and hate under the guise of righteousness. Altruists who go out into Africa and the Middle East and put their lives at risk trying to help women who have it really fking bad, THOSE are the good feminists, the women who fight for women everywhere, but don't make it about THEMSELVES. The feminists who write a blog for a living, cry about first world problems, decry every problem in creations as a result of some imaginary patriarchy and have the nerve to turn every tragedy and bit of news into "this is how toxic masculinity/patriarchy hurts XYZ".

I leave you with this noodle scratcher I heard recently: "Gay men experience the consequences of a patriarchal society. Homophobia is deeply rooted in misogyny". That expression is representative of an assertion without evidence, an actually contradiction in terms and a non sequitur. The fact that anyone could sincerely believe that a fear of two men having a sexual relationship is rooted in a hatred of women is... well by the definitions of the word it makes no sense. These are the people I take exception with. Why would I run around maligning people who do good, hard work trying to make the world a better place? I'm fixated on the clickbait journalists, the sensationalists, and the hate mongers, charlatans and hypocrites who are just out to make a buck, or legitimately seem to have something wrong with them. You and SonofFaust seem to be looking at just the good Feminists, whereas I acknowledge them, but only concern myself with the bad. I don't care about the good ones, because they're doing what they're supposed to be doing - helping people. I care about the bad ones because my conscience demands I care about them and try and discredit them, because they are using the language of the oppressed and the just to advocate for some truly, truly heinous repressive changes to society that have NOTHING to do with making life more equitable for women - I'm talking about censorship, the literal tool of fascism.

Ugh, I'm tired trying to pick apart fake slacktivists from real people doing good work. I shouldn't have to go to such lengths to point out people like Amanda Marcotte and the writers over at Feminiisting (which sounds an awful lot like a sex act) are help up by the far left media as the "face of feminism" when they are the ones who hold extremists left wing views and engage in hypocrisy. I'd ask where all the good feminists are to be interviewed, but that's a stupid question - they're out actually making the world a better place and don't have time for hit pieces and they certainly aren't going to make very interesting clickbait stories either. -_-

Ok, merry xmas everything. Or happy whatever. Eat stuff, get fat, feel good, then feel guilty, then do it all again next year!

Oh, and I've kind of forgotten to mention it in this locking of horns, but from what's floating around: the FBI is investigating two, as of yet unnamed, people for *false* (you read that correctly) death threats. Zoe Quinn (Chelsea Van Valkenburg or whatever, I HATE using shitty aliases) is apparently not in the states at this time, but is having legal action brought against her and another individual for doxxing and death threats (made on her behalf or as a result of the doxxing). Brianna Wu has been publicly called out due to the fact that careful analysis of timing (internet and twitter posts), her story in general and photos from her house and her webcam when she reported that she had fled her home established that it's kind of hard to report from your home office if you're supposed to be "fleeing somewhere safe". People tried to censor a website that reports all sorts of news the anti-gamer crowd doesn't like, claiming it was putting someone in clear and present danger, something which was not the case considering the contents of the article were all publicly available information that was being used to disprove her original claims of fleeing her home in the first place. The stakes aren't up and the torches aren't soaked in pitch yet... but the FBI doesn't like to be screwed with and they REALLY don't care about political correctness or ideology when it comes to things that waste their time.

Oh, and David Olson has started a legal fund because he distributed Child Porn in a blog of his in a truly stupid attempt at attacking 8chan, simply because they allow gamergate discussion to happen there (that censorship though). Turns out downloading CP and then editing it and then LINKING to it on Twitter... is very much a crime. And a bunch of SJW psychos retweeted the link, which in a perfect world would make them guilty of distributing CP as well. One can only a dream though. Little, uh, status update there for you, not that you care or anything.

Can we be like, done with this? Maybe talk about art, or porn, or porn art? How about My Little Pony? I don't watch it, but I'm familiar with it... Doing that staring too long into the abyss thing and it's getting to be soul numbing -_-.

Regardless of whatever your opinion on gamergate might be; can we all just agree that it's pretty hectic as it is?

I'm not sure that you're using thr right word there.

Pardon?

WHOEVER WINS, WE ALL LOSE.

whew, took me a while to scroll and reach that comment box. in the end, i forgot what i wanted to say, but yeah, Anita's looking quite realistic on that one, i love it <3

Ha. I'm really behind all this, but this is a fun picture. :)

*I'm really behind on all this. Again, this is a fun picture.