Topics that are started then locked

[tggodfrey]

I love it, posts that are started by a member then he/she/it locks the post so that it is impossible for anyone to comment on it.  These sorts of people are the jellyfish of the civilized world.  They use this tactic to avoid the general public responses due to their own delusional opinion that thier view on the matter is in fact the last word.  You have seen these types of people in many places; often found as police, members of the judicial system (excluding lawyers), politicians, Presidents, dictators, and feminists.  Like the jellyfish, they are spineless, clueless, and useless; they are only their to piss you off as you step on them.  They are often found hiding from reality while jerking off to the sears catalog during their adolescent years.  When they reach a matured age they lack communication skills yet due to their incorrect perception of reality conjured up by watching hours of whos the boss and different strokes on Tv they seem to insist the rest of the world is wrong.  You have to sit back and admire thier level of stupidity, it really is hard work. 

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Chickenshit tactics.  I bet they're too busy responding to the droves of PMs they receive saying that they're in the right and that all the long time members are jerks.

[PCEngineHell]

There is a certain art to thread locking. Its always fun to watch the activity of the supposed mark, and when you know you have enraged him and he is about to type up a big rant on your thread, you give him 4-5 mins to let him think the topic is open and he is safe to fire away, then lock it while he is committed. After 20-30 mins of him wasting his time, when he goes to post it only infuriates said mark much more to find he wasted all that time and rage for nothing when his post is denied.

[tggodfrey]

lmao......never thought of that

[esteban]

I don't know why feminists are getting hate from Mr. Godfrey.  Otherwise, I agree.

BONUS: Hell, throw atheists into the fire as well. And union organizers. Then I can be 100% chickenshit pussy.

[Bernie]

There is a certain art to thread locking. Its always fun to watch the activity of the supposed mark, and when you know you have enraged him and he is about to type up a big rant on your thread, you give him 4-5 mins to let him think the topic is open and he is safe to fire away, then lock it while he is committed. After 20-30 mins of him wasting his time, when he goes to post it only infuriates said mark much more to find he wasted all that time and rage for nothing when his post is denied.

lmao.  I actually did laugh out loud at this.

[tggodfrey]

I don't know why feminists are getting hate from Mr. Godfrey.  Otherwise, I agree.

BONUS: Hell, throw atheists into the fire as well. And union organizers. Then I can be 100% chickenshit pussy.

Fuck you and your feminist clan!  The only womens rights I support is their choice to swallow or gulp!

[tggodfrey]

lol

[MotherGunner]

I just thought "Original Gangstas" were supposed to be tough guys.   

/Gangsta-Fail_o_132113.jpg

[OldRover]

I don't know why feminists are getting hate from Mr. Godfrey.

I could give you a thousand reasons.

[esteban]

I still love Godfrey and Rover, especially as they suck my left one. 

[Nazi NecroPhile]

OG Hello Kitteh baller. 

[HailingTheThings]

I don't know why feminists are getting hate from Mr. Godfrey.  Otherwise, I agree.

BONUS: Hell, throw atheists into the fire as well. And union organizers. Then I can be 100% chickenshit pussy.

Fuck you and your feminist clan!  The only womens rights I support is their choice to swallow or gulp!

*facepalms*

What about their right to sammich maknig? hmmm? I bet you support more women's rights than you let on.

You're typo = a very bad word, also, please don't encourage him, you know better than that, I think. lol

[tggodfrey]

you're and you still confuses him Nulltard..... Hooked on phonics did not work for him.

[tggodfrey]

lol just jerking your chain.......I said Chain you fucking pervert!

[bob]

.... Hooked on phonics did not work for him.

it did actually.  he just chose to use the jar jar binks edition

[OldRover]

I still love Godfrey and Rover, especially as they suck my left one. 

I support women's rights; I don't support feminism. There's a difference. Anyone who doesn't know the difference... go learn it.

[esteban]

I still love Godfrey and Rover, especially as they suck my left one. 

I support women's rights; I don't support feminism. There's a difference. Anyone who doesn't know the difference... go learn it.

You crazy.

I support feminism.

Only pussies would be afraid to support full empowerment.

I'm staunchly left-wing when it comes to politics/economics/what-have-you.

Only pussies say "I'm liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative."

Fuck that.

Anyway, I know you will eventually give feminism a chance, so I'm not worried.   .

[HailingTheThings]

What about their right to sammich maknig? hmmm? I bet you support more women's rights than you let on.

You're typo = a very bad word, also, please don't encourage him, you know better than that, I think. lol

*your



And everyone knows that the best way to put out a fire is to pour gasoline on it.

The "You're" was intentional.

you're and you still confuses him Null..... Hooked on phonics did not work for him.

Hi.

.... Hooked on phonics did not work for him.

it did actually.  he just chose to use the jar jar binks edition

Out of the butts that I don't like, I actually like you. 'nuff said.

[TheClash603]

I still love Godfrey and Rover, especially as they suck my left one. 

I support women's rights; I don't support feminism. There's a difference. Anyone who doesn't know the difference... go learn it.

You crazy.

I support feminism.

Only pussies would be afraid to support full empowerment.

I'm staunchly left-wing when it comes to politics/economics/what-have-you.

Only pussies say "I'm liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative."

Fuck that.

Anyway, I know you will eventually give feminism a chance, so I'm not worried.   .

I do hate the right-wing economist left-wing lifestyle.  In banking all of the young people pretend to be this, when in fact they are just Ronald Overrated wannabes.

[OldRover]

You crazy.

I support feminism.

Only pussies would be afraid to support full empowerment.

I'm staunchly left-wing when it comes to politics/economics/what-have-you.

Only pussies say "I'm liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative."

Fuck that.

Anyway, I know you will eventually give feminism a chance, so I'm not worried.   .

I gave feminism a chance for 8 years. Feminism isn't about full empowerment. Hell, it's not even about women's rights anymore. It's about victimhood, special treatment, and male-shaming. Fuck that shit. I'm an egalitarian. Feminism can fuck off with its victim mentality and clamoring for special rights for one while trying to take the rights from another.

[HailingTheThings]

"You're" was intentional?    was that an attempt at irony or just over my head? Not trying to be a butt... really curious.  Also, I checked urban dictionary and all of the Googles and could find nothing on my typo. ) :   I hate not getting jokes...

I was just being a butt.

You're typo is not a word on its own, but rather half of it is a naughty word, sorry I ever said anything. i was just lerrrrking n such then  eye saww dat ann waz alll lyke "Uhhhh no, that's lyke naughtttty err something."

I. Love. You.

[TheClash603]

"You're" was intentional?    was that an attempt at irony or just over my head? Not trying to be a butt... really curious.  Also, I checked urban dictionary and all of the Googles and could find nothing on my typo. ) :   I hate not getting jokes...

I was just being a butt.

You're typo is not a word on its own, but rather half of it is a naughty word, sorry I ever said anything. i was just lerrrrking n such then  eye saww dat ann waz alll lyke "Uhhhh no, that's lyke naughtttty err something."

I. Love. You.

You sir, are a Reverse Racist.

[esteban]

You crazy.

I support feminism.

Only pussies would be afraid to support full empowerment.

I'm staunchly left-wing when it comes to politics/economics/what-have-you.

Only pussies say "I'm liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative."

Fuck that.

Anyway, I know you will eventually give feminism a chance, so I'm not worried.   .

I gave feminism a chance for 8 years. Feminism isn't about full empowerment. Hell, it's not even about women's rights anymore. It's about victimhood, special treatment, and male-shaming. Fuck that shit. I'm an egalitarian. Feminism can fuck off with its victim mentality and clamoring for special rights for one while trying to take the rights from another.

Feminism is what you make it.

Feminism is about (1) analyzing/understanding sexism and (2) fighting sexism. Like anything else, it is an umbrella term that captures a wide range of views and perspectives.

You evaluate individual theories and frameworks before subscribing to them.

By embracing egalitarianism, you most certainly are embracing core components of feminism (even if you don't want to think if them that way).

You don't have to identify your beliefs as feminist, but I just want you to know that we probably agree on many, many issues. 

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I support feminazism.

[esteban]

 

[HailingTheThings]

You sir, are a Reverse Racist.

Noooooooo!!!1!!!!1!!!

What do I do????

I'mma monster!!!!! Someone help meeeeee!!!!!??!?

[OldRover]

By embracing egalitarianism, you most certainly are embracing core components of feminism (even if you don't want to think if them that way).

I subscribe to some of the core components of communism but that doesn't make me a communist. Additionally, these concepts are also core components of the MRM, but that doesn't make me an MRA. I refuse to be a part of the fear-mongering, victim-mentality, bitch-fest that makes up modern feminism. Fuck modern feminism and all its enablers. Equality means nothing if you have to hurt others to get it.

You don't have to identify your beliefs as feminist, but I just want you to know that we probably agree on many, many issues. 

Of course we agree on many, many issues. I just refuse to be a part of the feminist racket anymore. Eight years was enough. Fuck, eight days was enough. I will not be involved with a movement that perpetrates victimhood to maintain its own validity, while at the same time, blaming illusory boogeymen for all the problems of the world.

If it was truly about equality, it wouldn't begin with "fem". Think about it.

[esteban]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with how you characterize feminism.

Not to fuel the fire, I offer this simply to show my perspective:

Identifying sexist beliefs/customs/practices/etc. is not man-hating.

Identifying the privileges men enjoy in society is not man-hating.

I am simply pointing out that men, as a group, have benefitted socially, economically, politically, emotionally, etc. by virtue of simply being men.

Now, not all men have enjoyed the fullest advantages (just ask a latino/black male, or a gay male, or a Muslim male, etc.)...but men as a group, have enjoyed privileges at the detriment to women and it is long past time to change our culture, our beliefs, our hearts.

That is all.

[OldRover]

Identifying the privileges men enjoy in society is not man-hating.

How about ignoring the privileges women enjoy in society? What is that?

I am simply pointing out that men, as a group, have benefitted socially, economically, politically, emotionally, etc. by virtue of simply being men.

So have women.

Now, not all men have enjoyed the fullest advantages (just ask a latino/black male, or a gay male, or a Muslim male, etc.)...but men as a group, have enjoyed privileges at the detriment to women and it is long past time to change our culture, our beliefs, our hearts.

That is all.

Virtually no one "enjoys" these illusory "privileges". Privilege theory is total bullshit. It's just a convenient cop-out for people who don't want to listen to the opposing point of view. The only ones with privilege are the rich. Hell, one could argue that we all here now, whether male or female, have privilege over those in third-world nations who've never even heard of the internet or personal computers.

[OldRover]

The sooner society stops treating women as defenseless, infantile white scarves who can't think for themselves, the better. Feminism preaches that women are weak and need protection, yet despite this, are somehow equal to men. Women are strong and capable on their own and should be held to the same level of responsibility and accountability as men have been for centuries. Feminism does absolutely nothing to accomplish this. Thus, fuck feminism and its victim mentality. Stop treating women like delicate little flowers and start treating them as your equal.

[Emerald Rocker]

I remember those bygone days when Rover and I used to argue about everything -- and now I almost never need to post anything, because Rover has already said it.  Guess I was pretty stupid back in the old days.

Privilege is one of those concepts which is so narrow in practical use, but applied so broadly by people nowadays.  Muslim men have a larger and tighter-knit social network within my workplace... but if they go to the bar across the street, heads turn.  The one black kid at my high school was treated like royalty by people who called him racist names.  Privileged?  Not privileged?  Maybe some of both -- life isn't simple.

Privilege theory tries to make the world simple via cultural stereotypes and behavioral generalizations.  Toss in some victimization and shaming, too.  Time that's spent thinking about "privilege" is time that would be better spent on actually helping people.  You don't assist the minority McDonald's worker who's never gotten a raise by commiserating over her unprivileged helplessness; you assist by working with her to put together a resume that highlights her five years of continuous employment in the fast food industry so that she can get a job at Boston Market.  It may sound a little ridiculous to people in white-collar professions, but 50 cents more per hour can be a big deal.  And fast food, as an industry, is actually doing pretty well right now (and therefore hiring).  Even if it doesn't pan out immediately, that kind of collaborative experience to truly *help* someone builds a bond.

Or we could tell the naive pragmatist to "check his privilege" (a.k.a. "piss off") since he clearly understands nothing.  We know this because of his skin color.

[esteban]

I remember those bygone days when Rover and I used to argue about everything -- and now I almost never need to post anything, because Rover has already said it.  Guess I was pretty stupid back in the old days.

Privilege is one of those concepts which is so narrow in practical use, but applied so broadly by people nowadays.  Muslim men have a larger and tighter-knit social network within my workplace... but if they go to the bar across the street, heads turn.  The one black kid at my high school was treated like royalty by people who called him racist names.  Privileged?  Not privileged?  Maybe some of both -- life isn't simple.

Privilege theory tries to make the world simple via cultural stereotypes and behavioral generalizations.  Toss in some victimization and shaming, too.  Time that's spent thinking about "privilege" is time that would be better spent on actually helping people.  You don't assist the minority McDonald's worker who's never gotten a raise by commiserating over her unprivileged helplessness; you assist by working with her to put together a resume that highlights her five years of continuous employment in the fast food industry so that she can get a job at Boston Market.  It may sound a little ridiculous to people in white-collar professions, but 50 cents more per hour can be a big deal.  And fast food, as an industry, is actually doing pretty well right now (and therefore hiring).  Even if it doesn't pan out immediately, that kind of collaborative experience to truly *help* someone builds a bond.

Or we could tell the naive pragmatist to "check his privilege" (a.k.a. "piss off") since he clearly understands nothing.  We know this because of his skin color.

I use "privilege" because I am in polite conversation and it's easier for most folks to deal with. When I start using other terminology...well, it sometimes results in knee-jerk reactions (that is, the merits of the argument are not truly evaluated).

So, enough sugar-coating. You are grown men/women/transgender/transsexual/eunuchs 

When I speak of privilege, I speak of inequality.

Inequality is real and manifests itself on many planes (social, political, economic, emotional, etc.)...and in all facets of our being (age, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, sex, gender, religious affiliation, etc.).

As you say, life isn't simple: at any given moment, depending on the context, a person may be facing a combination of various privileges vs. inequalities.

I want an honest, real discussion of inequality. Therefore, I find it hilarious that you and Rover get so defensive when I call out the groups that benefit from the status quo (you call it "shaming", I call it "reality").

I find it equally amusing that when I speak of the folks who are exploited/ignored/oppressed, you and Rover desperately try to portray it as a "cult of victimization"...

Please stop mischaracterizing the fight against inequality.

Notice, I speak about groups, not individuals, and how systems/institutions/cultural practices reproduce inequality.

We can't have an honest dialogue about inequality unless we examine how power/money/status/opportunities/etc.  are systematically available for certain groups to the detriment of other groups.

I embrace any and all methods of achieving social justice. I have worked actively on this (as a union organizer).

Although I wish more folks actively worked on making the world a better place, I appreciate any gesture, no matter how trivial, that helps folks (slowly) understand inequality, its causes, and possible solutions.

Cultural beliefs/practices take time to change, sadly. I want radical changes, now, but this scares the conservative folks...so I'll bide my time.

For now. 

[HailingTheThings]

On a lighter note, who else thinks Anita Sarkeesian looks darling? :3

[NightWolve]

I have worked actively on this (as a union organizer).

Hmmm. Interestin'. A union organizer of all things, huh ? Did not know that...

On the Feminazi debate, I am surprised to find agreement with Rover. Sorry esteban. ;) Not that you're necessarily wrong actually. There are the ugly excesses that occur by such movements and that starts to get more focus than on the stuff we can agree on is wrong/unfair, etc. I do confess, I like calling 'em Feminazis.

On the thread topic, this is obviously in reference to a recent arrival, Mr. OGHUGO, and his "fighting back" against Professor. Sure, it's basic cowardice, make a thread with a title that attacks/taunts the target, lock said thread so that target doesn't get to respond in kind, and you get to define/describe the history/situation any which way that you want. I've never seen a blatant example like OGHUGO's actually, but yeah...

[Emerald Rocker]

Esteban, a couple things in your post that I take issue with.

1. You stated that I was being "defensive" in my post.  So clearly I was not not offensive enough =D

But seriously, it's not defensive to express disdain with how the concept of "privilege" is wielded by a lot of people.  It's popularly used as a battlemace to shame others and reinforce feelings of victimization.  That's an observation on what happened to a concept after it entered the mainstream.  As an example, the phrase "check your privilege" was originally intended to make people think, but it's commonly used today as a pithy way to end discourse rather than enhance it.

Even at its best intent, "check your privilege" is a judgmental statement that assumes the conclusion ("We're not equal, and it's unjust!") without actually proving the inequality or proving why it's unjust.  It's an attack phrase that puts the target on the defensive.

You didn't use that phrase, so that's not intended as a judgment on you.  That's an example of how the concept of "privilege" is popularly used, which goes towards my distrust of people and organizations that do preach the concept of privilege.

2. You state that Rover and I are "desperately" trying to portray exploitation/marginalization/oppression as a cult of victimization.  Desperation implies that I'm struggling at wit's end, which is premature since this is only my second post on the topic.  By labeling my post "desperate" you're downplaying everything I said, which isn't a good lead-in to an honest, real discussion.

While I'm picking at that statement, here's another point.

3. Exploitation and marginalization (aka being ignored) is one thing, but oppression is something else entirely.  Labeling marginalized groups in the United States as "oppressed" is an enemy-building form of hyperbole at best, and an outright lie at worst.  In these kinds of discussions, leftists hate it when conservatives point to actual oppression (like sexual slavery in Africa).  After all, the existence of *extreme* injustice abroad doesn't mean we should ignore domestic injustice... but the whole reason we do that is because the word is being mis-used.  When people use the word "oppression", it's hard not to think about actual oppression.

It's pretty much the same reason I dislike being called a "misogynist" for enjoying Valis (that really happened, by the way).  "Misogyny" means hating a woman because she's a woman.  Enjoying videogames with scantily-clad women does not make someone a misogynist, failing to follow the platinum rule does not make someone a misogynist, and even being sexist does not make someone a misogynist.

If we redefine strong words to fit lesser situations, then those strong words lose their power.  And when words lose their power, people will turn them into jokes because that's what the word has become -- a big joke.  "Racist!" has already reached that point.

Whereas actual racism, actual misogyny, and actual oppression are nothing to joke about.

[Emerald Rocker]

You got me!

[Sadler]

Esteban, a couple things in your post that I take issue with.

...SNIP...

[esteban]

Esteban, a couple things in your post that I take issue with.

1. You stated that I was being "defensive" in my post.  So clearly I was not not offensive enough =D

But seriously, it's not defensive to express disdain with how the concept of "privilege" is wielded by a lot of people.  It's popularly used as a battlemace to shame others and reinforce feelings of victimization.  That's an observation on what happened to a concept after it entered the mainstream.  As an example, the phrase "check your privilege" was originally intended to make people think, but it's commonly used today as a pithy way to end discourse rather than enhance it.

Even at its best intent, "check your privilege" is a judgmental statement that assumes the conclusion ("We're not equal, and it's unjust!") without actually proving the inequality or proving why it's unjust.  It's an attack phrase that puts the target on the defensive.

You didn't use that phrase, so that's not intended as a judgment on you.  That's an example of how the concept of "privilege" is popularly used, which goes towards my distrust of people and organizations that do preach the concept of privilege.

2. You state that Rover and I are "desperately" trying to portray exploitation/marginalization/oppression as a cult of victimization.  Desperation implies that I'm struggling at wit's end, which is premature since this is only my second post on the topic.  By labeling my post "desperate" you're downplaying everything I said, which isn't a good lead-in to an honest, real discussion.

While I'm picking at that statement, here's another point.

3. Exploitation and marginalization (aka being ignored) is one thing, but oppression is something else entirely.  Labeling marginalized groups in the United States as "oppressed" is an enemy-building form of hyperbole at best, and an outright lie at worst.  In these kinds of discussions, leftists hate it when conservatives point to actual oppression (like sexual slavery in Africa).  After all, the existence of *extreme* injustice abroad doesn't mean we should ignore domestic injustice... but the whole reason we do that is because the word is being mis-used.  When people use the word "oppression", it's hard not to think about actual oppression.

It's pretty much the same reason I dislike being called a "misogynist" for enjoying Valis (that really happened, by the way).  "Misogyny" means hating a woman because she's a woman.  Enjoying videogames with scantily-clad women does not make someone a misogynist, failing to follow the platinum rule does not make someone a misogynist, and even being sexist does not make someone a misogynist.

If we redefine strong words to fit lesser situations, then those strong words lose their power.  And when words lose their power, people will turn them into jokes because that's what the word has become -- a big joke.  "Racist!" has already reached that point.

Whereas actual racism, actual misogyny, and actual oppression are nothing to joke about.

I am content to move beyond #1 and #2—I understand your position. As for #2...yes, I am guilty of baiting you (and Rover) by characterizing your position as desperate. I should have said "insistent"...but, that wouldn't have been as fun  Clearly, we will agree to disagree about #1 and #2.

As for #3, I find it troubling (and bizarre) for you to create a false dichotomy (so-called "real oppression" versus "fake oppression"). Like many concepts, oppression is experienced/manifested on a continuum.

If I were to agree to your conceit, we would argue about where the line distinguishing "serious" and "minor" oppression should be drawn on the spectrum.

But, I can't even humor you, because I counter that "oppression" is NOT being misused when it is applied to "first-world" inequality.

Make no mistake, domestic injustice (North America) is oppression. To say otherwise is to trivialize the struggle of women.

The simplest—and most intellectually honest—solution, therefore, is not to abandon the term oppression, but to be more precise when we discuss specific forms of oppression.

In other words, if I wasn't clear enough: I unequivocally reject the entire premise that domestic injustice is not "genuine" oppression.

But—and I'm serious—I do love reading your posts. You have always expressed yourself exquisitely. 

Now, as for Valis!

First, please help me find more music by the composer of Valis II.

Second, I honestly believe that we ALL contribute to/reinforce/and reproduce existing structures of inequality. ALL of us:
(A) Sometimes we are completely ignorant of it.
(B) Sometimes we do it knowingly (but rationalize our involvement).
(C) Sometimes we purposefully and actively engage in it.

This is obvious. And it is tremendously useful in understanding the bridge between micro- (personal, interpersonal relationships) and macro- (institutional/cultural) levels of analysis.

You see, I'm not concerned with labeling individuals as racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc. 

'm interested in identifying/analyzing/understanding how racist/misogynistic/homophobic practices are reinforced/reproduced.

As I said, I think we are all guilty (usually "A" and "B"), which simply means we are part of an ugly, unfair, messy world. For example, when I buy cheap produce at the market, I know damn well that migrant laborers were  exploited. My shoes, my glasses, my phone, my coffee, the roses I bought for Mother's Day, the soccer ball for my daughter...fkuck, everythling that I appreciate in my comfortable lifestyle was birthed from inequality.

This is reality.

I won't bore you with examples of sexism...

[OldRover]

*sigh*

esteban, you sound like I used to sound when I wore the feminist-colored glasses. The hyperbole never changes, does it?

You need to wake up, like I did, and realize that you cannot solve the problems of all if you only focus on the problems of some. I see you go on and on about the "struggles of women", yet completely ignore the struggles of men. Life is filled with struggles, and no petty hate group like the modern feminist movement is ever going to change that. We all face challenges, discrimination, and hate. It's just part of the human condition. You can bitch and whine about it like an infantile fool, or you can soldier on and persevere despite said issues.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

It's pretty much the same reason I dislike being called a "misogynist" for enjoying Valis (that really happened, by the way). 

What if I like playing Valis X?  Does that make me a misogynist or just a garden variety pervert?

[OldRover]

What if I like playing Valis X?  Does that make me a misogynist or just a garden variety pervert?

The scientific term for this is "human".

[synbiosfan]

What if I like playing Valis X?  Does that make me a misogynist or just a garden variety pervert?

The scientific term for this is "human".

Then what's it called for Necromancer

[bob]

its so "bizzaro world" when esty gets serious.
surreal even.

[esteban]

*sigh*

esteban, you sound like I used to sound when I wore the feminist-colored glasses. The hyperbole never changes, does it?

You need to wake up, like I did, and realize that you cannot solve the problems of all if you only focus on the problems of some. I see you go on and on about the "struggles of women", yet completely ignore the struggles of men. Life is filled with struggles, and no petty hate group like the modern feminist movement is ever going to change that. We all face challenges, discrimination, and hate. It's just part of the human condition. You can bitch and whine about it like an infantile fool, or you can soldier on and persevere despite said issues.

You crazy.

First, I don't know why you equate feminism with a narrow perspective.

Feminism is about the intersection of race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. etc.

So, all struggles are interlocked.

That's why I talked about inequality in my last post—to emphasize the broad scope of feminism and social justice movements.

Oh well, I'm gonna go listen to some Spitboy and Los Crudos. 

[OldRover]

You crazy.

I'm not the one who follows a hate movement.

First, I don't know why you equate feminism with a narrow perspective.

Because it is a narrow perspective. A narrow perspective and a narrow-minded movement where the only thing they think about is themselves.

Feminism is about the intersection of race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. etc.

No. You're thinking of humanism. They are SO not the same. Feminism is about the protection and advancement of women's rights... NOTHING MORE (and in practice, it isn't even about this anymore). You can't just arbitrarily assign meanings to things and think it's a-ok.

So, all struggles are interlocked.

No, they're not. This is groupthink nonsense. And even if it was, why doesn't feminism give a fuck about the struggles faced by people like me? Because I'm the "enemy" in their eyes, that's why, and that is one of the legions of reasons I walked away from that bigoted, sexist, full-of-shit rabble.

That's why I talked about inequality in my last post—to emphasize the broad scope of feminism and social justice movements.

Feminists don't give a flying fuck about inequality... unless as part of the selling point. It really sucks that you have fallen for their horseshit. And again, if it really was a broad scope, it wouldn't be called FEMinism. You've been sold a lie and you don't even bother to question it. First rule of life: question everything.

You said that you were interested in identifying/analyzing/understanding how racist/misogynistic/homophobic practices are reinforced/reproduced. Are you at all concerned about misandry or misanthropy? How about transphobia? Perhaps xenophobia? Ableism? Are you concerned with all of these things and more? (These are all things I personally deal with.) Well, I am. Also, I actually propose and execute solutions to these problems. This is one of the things the feminist crowd hated about me the most... I was a problem-solver, not a propaganda-spreader. I did the research, I showed the results, I acted upon them... while they sat around whining about illusory boogeymen and parroting outdated and often made-up statistics. I cleanly took apart the 77 cent myth, for example... but instead of it being seen as a sign of progress, they clung desperately to the myth to maintain the relevance of the movement. I produced relevant, expansive statistics about domestic violence that contradicts their dogma, and instead of upgrading their knowledge of the real world, they remained hidden in their dark caves of ignorance, wagging their finger in disgust that someone would actually dare show them that domestic violence is not a gendered issue. I annihilated the 1-in-3 myth by producing the actual statistics for them, but instead of recognizing that they had been sold a line of hooey, they just came back with the privilege copout so they didn't have to give up their victim status. They really hated it when I produced the statistics for the other side of the coin. I proposed a real working solution to the inequality of parental rights that exists right now, but they didn't like it because it gives men similar rights to parenthood as women, and that just didn't fly because they believed that the woman should have all the authority in the matter (like they do right now). They prattle on and on about "rape culture", but hate it when I show them that not only are they misusing the term, but that the term comes from the US prison industry, where women are quite often the perpetrators of sexual assault against men.

About 1 in 5 first-world women are feminists. Why? Because 4 in 5 first-world women are too smart to fall for this bullshit. Women interested in the fight for equality tend to be egalitarians. Amusingly enough, I know many women who are in the MRM... because they've fucking had it with feminists trying to speak for them. They are sick and tired of being told that they are a victim when they're not, and they know damn well that their actions are their own.

[Emerald Rocker]

I was a problem-solver, not a propaganda-spreader. I did the research, I showed the results, I acted upon them

Good on you!  Here are my steps to problem-solving.  Since you're a programmer, I bet your process is similar:

1. Obtain evidence that a problem might exist.
2. Prove that a problem actually does exist.
3. Identify the root cause of the problem.
4. Formulate a corrective action plan.
5. Determine if the plan is feasible.
6. If "yes", go for it!

The common stumbling blocks are #2/3 (people often skip straight from #1 to #4 -- they see something that looks like a problem, and decide "something must change!", often latching onto a talking point from their team... er, I mean, their favored political organization).  #6 is also a common stumbling block.  A lot of people enjoy complaining more than they enjoy performing.

As an aside, I think MRAs and modern feminists are both pretty annoying, even though I may agree with one or the other group on specific points.  There really is a lot of stuff out there that is perceived as "true" just because it's repeated a lot.  All the jargon and bingo cards and talking points make my brain hurt.

First, please help me find more music by the composer of Valis II.

Valis 2 had multiple composers, but the coolest of them all is Tenpei Sato who went on to compose the music for Emerald Dragon.

If I'm remembering correctly, Michiko Naruke also worked on one of the Valis games and eventually did all the Wild Arms.

[OldRover]

1. Obtain evidence that a problem might exist.
2. Prove that a problem actually does exist.
3. Identify the root cause of the problem.
4. Formulate a corrective action plan.
5. Determine if the plan is feasible.
6. If "yes", go for it!

Yes, that's pretty much my process, you put it quite succinctly. #2 is usually the hardest, and #3 is the one no one really wants to know about because it runs a large chance of threatening their own philosophies.

The common stumbling blocks are #2/3 (people often skip straight from #1 to #4 -- they see something that looks like a problem, and decide "something must change!", often latching onto a talking point from their team... er, I mean, their favored political organization).  #6 is also a common stumbling block.  A lot of people enjoy complaining more than they enjoy performing.

Complaining is easy; performing requires effort and dedication. #6 is usually where I run into opposition from others. By the time it gets to that point, the cause is known, a plan of action is designed, and the outcome can be predicted... and that's when the opposition blocks the way for the sake of maintaining the status quo, be it from "the establishment" or from feminists.

As an aside, I think MRAs and modern feminists are both pretty annoying, even though I may agree with one or the other group on specific points.  There really is a lot of stuff out there that is perceived as "true" just because it's repeated a lot.  All the jargon and bingo cards and talking points make my brain hurt.

I totally agree. Both groups have some valid complaints, but at the end of the day, it's mostly noise, and those who actually have a fucking clue are drowned out by the throngs of mouth breathers with an axe to grind.

[HailingTheThings]

It's pretty much the same reason I dislike being called a "misogynist" for enjoying Valis (that really happened, by the way). 

What if I like playing Valis X?  Does that make me a misogynist or just a garden variety pervert?

lol garden variety.

[Emerald Rocker]

That's an odd garden.