Gamer Gate (d_k is a self-loathing misandrist, but at least he's not Ernie)

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
BlackRedGold
Registered Broad
Posts: 8118
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:42 am
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 6 times

Post #451 by BlackRedGold » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:33 pm

Lord Chezz wrote:Im saddened that the opposite doesnt happen to me in the HR world (one guy per 25 women).


HR people might be a little more aware of what sexual harassment is compared to coding geeks.
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #452 by Cao » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:34 pm

that must be a satire of some sort
User avatar
Cao
Registered Broad
Posts: 16374
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:24 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 3 times

Post #453 by Cao » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:56 pm

It's frankly kind of amazing that women in the gaming industry have brought out all the autistic shut ins who play video games.

Women truly are great.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 22093
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 137 times
Received rep: 402 times

Post #454 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:02 pm

What is particularly fascinating about men who hate feminism (or their own understanding of what feminism entails) is that these men are often left-leaning, atheistic, purportedly rational-minded (so they say), pro-gay rights, believers in evolution, etc.

And yet their views on women are stunningly backwards. They actually believe that feminism is to blame for all forms of political correctness that is responsible for keeping them down, making them fat and unemployed.

Oh, and I forgot the big one - they are also pro-choice.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 22093
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 137 times
Received rep: 402 times

Post #455 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:18 pm

embracedbias wrote:Is there data on this or is that just your impression? Not being facetious


In case I wasn't clear, I am saying that many who hate feminism are liberals. Little doubt that conservatives aren't big on feminists either and probably feel even stronger about it.

This is based on my experiences with social media.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7751
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 259 times
Received rep: 417 times

Post #456 by senate » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:29 pm

If you guys haven't heard about the "dark enlightment" or the "neoreactionary" movement, which is very popular amongst the MRA and gamergate crowd, I highly recommend you seek it out.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #457 by RTWAP » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:32 pm

I'm sure a lot of those MRA organizations have more than a little bit of crazy in them. It's too bad because there are lots of ways in which men get the shaft. The problem for them is that in total women still get the shaft more. But what if you're one of the guys who's just being shafted instead of a perpetrator. Being told that your feelings of victim-hood are unimportant because someone else is a member of a larger group of victims could be pretty fury-inducing.

Lucky for me I don't feel victimized by society. My complaints are minor and observational.

Like men are tough. Which is why if someone is going to get demeaned in an ad then they're probably a guy. For most guys that's fine. The ad is nothing but funny. But if you talked to a guy going through tough times who feels a little vulnerable, it might just feel like an attack or a put-down. Or a reminder that he's supposed to be tough, but is failing at it.

The core point many MRA guys have right is we haven't paid much attention to how men should fit into this new world in a way that allows them to feel valued and nurtured. Of course many of them proceed from that starting point into a bizarre world where anyone not like them is a poorly conceived stereotype that feeds their feelings of victim-hood. Making fun of men in ads isn't part of a conspiracy, it's just safer and funnier. Making fun of women is harder and more risky in many situations. There's a reason. Women are victims of deliberate gender directed violence more often, you MRA dolts.
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 14 times

Post #458 by Roughneck » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:31 pm

As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are sceptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests.

*snip*

We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.

These two snippets alone could simply be copy and pasted to an MRA or Red Pill website as evidence of why feminism doesn't represent men and you need men's rights.


These pick-up artists and red pillers are basically offering the same thing the lady in this article is: a means for men to express their true sexuality and not be bogged down by societal expectations. It just appeals to a different group of them, which is why the article really misses the mark on the bigger picture.
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 14 times

Post #459 by Roughneck » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:59 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Rape is true?


Whatever floats your boat.
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 14 times

Post #460 by Roughneck » Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:04 am

dempsey_k wrote:Because I mean that's the logical result of what you said, tho of course I'm crediting you with a ton more character than that, I think you're just unaware of what these guys are actually saying. They think the definition of rape should be narrowed so they can have more sex.


I'm referring to why these groups are able to recruit 'members', despite what they're actually saying.

What I read from that article is a complete lack of understanding why many would be drawn to those groups in the first place, and it showed in how they thought they could sway them over to the other side.


"Want to be sexually submissive without feeling shame and accept your issues and gender are not as important to us as our own" vs. "Want to finally take control of your sexual desires and think about your issues first?"

Pretty one sided sales pitch when your audience people feeling short changed by the system. Why would they want to identify with a movement that is seemingly trying to belittle and marginalize them even more (not everybody has an innate desire to be "on the right side of history" regardless of how it may affect them)?

Similar to assuming anybody who gets drawn into white supremacist groups did so because they were already racist, and not because they were drawn in by empathetic and/or empowering people who could then manipulate their views after.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69116
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 711 times
Received rep: 803 times

Post #461 by AD » Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:26 am

That's a cute metaphor D, but the history of (hu)mankind seems to indicate the need for a yank. And nothing in the present or foreseeable future is much better.
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 14 times

Post #462 by Roughneck » Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:07 am

dempsey_k wrote:When I came across the first line you cited, I knew immediately it'd resonate poorly because of how it was written, not because of her meaning. Putting women's interests first - clearly not equal if stripped of context. But when you look at how sexism and other forms of oppression are structural in how laws and government intentionally leave women in more difficult positions and even form a pervasive unconscious grip over social interaction that feels 'normal', the interests of men have been fulfilled. So when she says put women's interests first, it's not a hierarchy, it's a correction. If you steered your car right and you're about to drive off a bridge, correcting left shouldn't elicit responses of Balance please!!!


Yeah, this is the problem. Not all laws benefit men, not all societal norms do either. So what are you going to say to a guy who is drawn to the MRA movement because they're just trying to correct issues from the other side like custody laws? Why can't they work to correct some men's issues while feminism works on the women's issues? Can't we all just be humanists/egalitarians/whatever else they're calling themselves? The idea the societal biases and benefits are one-sided across the board is simply wrong to begin with, this position just strengthens that. It makes it a hierarchy, or at the very least a correction where a lot of people feel they're in a car going off the road to the left, and are about to be hit by another car over-correcting.

It is also fueled by the methods used to make the correction. When a bunch of poor, lower class men who have been getting the wrong end of the stick their whole lives hear "why can't we make things for women easier" they're going to be a little peeved. When their concerns are then met with what effectively comes out as "don't you understand how easy you have had it, how dare you try to undermine women's issues?" when they're still near (or at least feel near) the bottom rung of society (whether economically or socially) then they're just going to become resentful and you get the more extreme MRAs being 'developed'. Similar to how you can effectively breed racism and resentment with other affirmative action policies.

In other words, dismissing or marginalizing the issues of people because of their gender...isn't good.

Her second statement about giving up on the extremoids is just practical. Don't waste time trying to convince the hopeless and the Hannibal Lecters.


While dismissing the extremists is practical, the methods are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Her and the extremists are fighting over the same people, and the extremists are getting them because she's saying 'your problems aren't as big as ours, but we'll get around to them eventually.'
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #463 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:11 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Twap, my guy, encourage you to specificslly ready the piece I posted above by the surly Brit dominatrix.


I read it the first time.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #464 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:19 pm

dempsey_k wrote:... the interests of men have been fulfilled ,,,


WTF? No they haven't. Men don't get whatever they want. I don't think anyone's interests are ever completely fulfilled. But the what's even worse about what you wrote is attaching that fulfillment to men as a whole. Do some men have privileges and power they shouldn't? Yes. Do some men behave deplorably? Yes. Does this in any way diminish the disadvantages, pain, or suffering that other men endure? No.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #465 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:29 pm

AD wrote:That's a cute metaphor D, but the history of (hu)mankind seems to indicate the need for a yank. And nothing in the present or foreseeable future is much better.


True story. When the police service in Ottawa was looking at becoming more racially diverse (1980's I think) the province's employment equity bureaucrats told them they needed to hire only visible minorities and women until the ratios were correct. So friggin' stupid. 15 years of hiring no write men, which is terribly unfair to any young white male who wanted to be a cop. He's not to blame for the previous racism, but he pays the price.

But even stupider, in 15 years the only people retiring would be the white cops in their 50's, so they'd have to spend 15 years replacing those guys so no women or minorities need apply. Gotta keep rigidly to the ratio. And then 15 years later no white guys again. Repeat for generation after generation until eventually things even out.

Wiser heads prevailed. They started hiring in ratios reflective of the community, adjusted for applicant ability and interest. When they find a lack of interest or ability skewing the ratios they try to address it with targeted outreach and support.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #466 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:29 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Because I mean that's the logical result of what you said, tho of course I'm crediting you with a ton more character than that, I think you're just unaware of what these guys are actually saying. They think the definition of rape should be narrowed so they can have more sex.


That's the crazy, and probably not even the worst of the crazy. But talking about that instead of substantive complaints is just serving the "men who disagree with women are bad" narrative.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #467 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:13 pm

dempsey_k wrote:You seem to be under the impression that equality comes with the price of more bonuses for men, as if we should use sexism as a lever to extract even better things for ourselves.

"Yeah we'll give equal pay and hiring quotas a try, if we enact go-kart Tuesdays"


I was under the impression you actually wanted to discuss this, not engage in pettiness. Sorry.
User avatar
MP
Registered Broad
Posts: 28781
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:13 pm
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 400 times

Post #468 by MP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:16 pm

RTWAP wrote:I was under the impression you actually wanted to discuss this, not engage in pettiness. Sorry.


Who are you to judge a man's pettiness?
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #469 by Sturminator » Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:09 am

Let' try to move the ball forward in a constructive manner, peeps. I see two topics vis-á-vis men's rights which don't seem to generate a hell of a lot of discussion, but are pretty important.

1) Boys are disadvantaged more so than girls by the parenting gap, and this is a big deal. In most western countries, the number of households headed by single mothers is shockingly large, and ever growing. Having only one parent around is a disadvantage no matter who you are, but lacking the parent of your own sex is considerably worse. It would be moronic to blame the mothers for this situation, but the simple fact of the matter is that the male children of single mothers grow up disadvantaged by "the system", at least in part as a result of custody laws which profoundly favor women.

2) There is one phase of life in the western world in which girls clearly have the advantage over boys: school. No, I'm not talking about academic performance and whatnot, where girls have a clear advantage which correlates with the first point, but rather the dynamics of social and sexual power. Simply put, adolescent boys generally suffer through a long period of sexual subordination. Boys become interested in sex earlier than girls (not just giggling about it, but actually doing it), but grow into their bodies more slowly, and in the meantime face a great deal of competition from above - older boys and men competing for the interest of the girls, and most of the time winning. This basic imbalance, combined with the fact that adolescent girls are among the cruelest creatures on god's green earth, can leave teenage boys and later young men with quite a lot of lingering bitterness towards the opposite sex.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no question that the adult world still favors men, and would continue to favor men even in a state of perfectly equal opportunity because of the fact that women have to schlep babies around. It's still a man's world, aye, but it's not much of a world for boys anymore, and that is a problem.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #470 by Ernie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:40 am

You really think it's easy to be a teenage girl?
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #471 by RTWAP » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:21 am

Ernie wrote:You really think it's easy to be a teenage girl?


No.

It might be easier. But I'm not even sure about that.

But just because there are tough things about being a girl, there are also tough things about being a boy. What I object to is an unwillingness to discuss or address any of the later just because the former exists. It's like saying we shouldn't treat prostate cancer because breast cancer kills more people.

Back to girls, I'm hopeful about progress in gender roles. My nephews had girls calling them and asking them out. I never heard of that happening, ever, in my generation. My nephews were also much more concerned about their clothes and hairstyle than any guy in my high-school time. Not that more style is an improvement, but at least it's progress to less rigid gender roles.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #472 by Sturminator » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:59 am

Ernie wrote:You really think it's easy to be a teenage girl?


Easier than formulating a sensible response to this fucking non sequitur.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #473 by Ernie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:33 am

Well I'm certainly more concerned about my niece entering her teenage years than my nephews but that's probably just me being patriarchal or something.

ehhh shouldn't have waded back in here.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #474 by Sturminator » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:45 pm

Well, super.

In the future, I'll be sure to keep the Ernie's-concern-for-his-siblings'-children metric in mind. Meanwhile, other than reported sexual assaults, boys in the western world are behind girls on pretty much every indicator of well being: school performance, incarceration rate, victim rate of violent crimes, drug addiction rate, you name it.

My guess, Ernie, is that you're suffering from the disease of affluence and projecting it onto everyone else. To you, I bet the fantasy of some leb fumbling with your niece in the back of a miata seems much more present than the idea that your nephews may end up dead or as wastoids, but then again, your nephews probably have a father at home.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #475 by Ernie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:35 pm

Yup, shoulda seen that one coming.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #476 by RTWAP » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:36 pm

I don't think anyone disagrees that death threats and actual attacks are terrible. Some might try to defend the losers based on some perceived power imbalance or some shit. But that's just lame.

I can see cops not taking death threats from basement-dwelling teenagers as seriously as others. Stereotypes FTW! But there's not even a flimsy excuse for failing to act on actual attacks.
User avatar
Zardoz
Registered Broad
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:48 pm
Location: Hamilton
Has given rep: 22 times
Received rep: 215 times

Post #477 by Zardoz » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:43 pm

Just get him to watch Working Girl.
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 14 times

Post #478 by Roughneck » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:15 am

embracedbias wrote:I'm confused. Doesn't that seem counterproductive?


It sounds like Harper's next excuse to not help aboriginal women.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #479 by RTWAP » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:11 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:This seems like the best place to post this: The Trouble With White Feminism


Am I allowed to say that article was dumb?

So many internal contradictions. It all basically boils down to "I get to define what feminism is and anyone who disagrees with me is racist". Intersectional my ass. The world if full of injustices of one kind or another. They are all worthy of being discuss and addressed. To fault someone for not having exactly the same injustices in exactly the same order and priority is stupid. I agree that people outside a culture can be uninformed about the inner details of that culture. But they're already interested in it. The correct response is to inform them, not to call them racist or chastise them for "erasure of experiences" or "erasing racial voices".

Specific stupidities:
[INDENT]White feminism works on the assumption that all women are equally oppressed[/INDENT]

No. A million times no. Emma Watson does not stand up and say there are no women more oppressed than her. She says all people have an interest in seeing all women treated fairly. The goal is equality. That does not mean the diagnosis is equal oppression.

[INDENT]it’s commonly lamented that women—as in all women—make about 77–82 cents for every dollar that a man makes. But that’s only white women. Black and Hispanic women make even less, 69 cents and 60 cents, respectively, for every dollar that a white man makes. [/INDENT]

I would be very surprised if statisticians went so far as to strip out all the non-white women from their male-female wage comparison stats. Far more likely is that the stats represent men as a whole and women as a whole. Non-white women may make up only a portion of that number but including the numerous white portion of the female population is not an act of racism. For the sake of argument, if you excluded all non-whites then I'm sure there would still be a wage imbalance, and if you included only non-whites you would see a similar wage imbalance, albeit at lower average wage levels.

It's almost like there are other factors that can combine for those people. Race is probably one. Socio-economic background could be another. School quality. Neighbourhood environment. Parental expectation. Lots of factors. Complaining that they are all really part of feminism and need to be included whenever feminism is discussed is stupid. They overlap. Some people will want to discuss their intersection. Some will want to focus on racial equality, or gender equality, or educational equality. It's not intersectional. It is multi-dimensional.

Can you imagine someone chastising MLK because he is erasing the experiences of economically disadvantaged American Indians?

[INDENT]“White feminism dehumanizes racialized women by ignoring and erasing the voice of women of colour,” says Matunda. “It passively reaffirms ideas that whiteness and white opinions are the only ideas that really matter.”[/INDENT]

If a feminist who is white speaks about women from a minority culture, but then she's erasing the voices of others. And if she doesn't then she's ignoring them.

And anytime someone accuses someone else of passively doing anything, there's a very good chance they're doing nothing of the sort. They're just not actively addressing the topic. I didn't address the topic of Ukraine's resistance to Russian interference in this post. That does not mean I have passively reaffirmed Russia's right to interfere.

I get that it's annoying that many of the most prominent feminists are white. Western civilization is currently mostly white. People with power (celebrity or otherwise) get noticed and make good spokeswomen. But there are women with power who aren't white (Michelle Obama, Shonda Rhimes, Oprah, Judge Sotomayor). But if you exclude them from your definition of prominent feminists and then decry the lack of non-white feminists, the problem isn't reality, it's your approach to it.

If someone feels there aren't enough prominent feminists with a particular mix of cultural, economic, regional, orientation, or whatever facets, then speak up. Find such a representative and help them be a better spokeswoman. Organize for them. Fundraise for them. Raise their profile. But if your plan is to criticize the existing spokeswomen for failing to be like you then that's just going to make you look stupid. Anyone who is not like you will feel excluded. They're unlikely to want to listen to you or your spokesperson, or provide funds, or volunteer. You've already told them they are unwelcome. You have deliberately narrowed your focus to one small community. Having done so you cannot then claim to be a victim of mistreatment from the large community you spurned.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #480 by RTWAP » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:36 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_whoredom_of_the_left_20150308

I dunno where I stand on this issue.


Lakeman, along with the radical feminists allied with the shelter, is the bête noire not only of the state but of feckless liberals who think physical abuse of a woman is abhorrent if it occurs in a sweatshop but somehow is acceptable in a rented room, an alley, a brothel, a massage parlor or a car.


That's dumb. Anyone who writes like that is engaging in propaganda, not reasonable discourse, let alone reporting. I find it hard to believe any liberal is ok with violence against a woman simply because of where it occurred.

We are seeing a range of violence against women that generations before us never saw


I call BS. We've made progress. But we cannot stop to pat ourselves on the back. A lot of work remains to be done. But being dishonest about it doesn't help.


But the larger issue is an interesting one. Based on a reasonable application of personal freedom, people should be able to provide sexual services. The argument would be that fundamentally they are no different than other services bought or sold. One counter-argument is that they are different, on a moral level. I don't happen to agree with that, and I suspect many liberals don't either. Preventing the exercise of personal freedom for "moral reasons" has been the foundation of a lot of racist, sexist, and homophobic policies.

But there is an criminal-element argument as well. The unique social dynamics of prostitution provide fertile ground for criminal organizations (large and small) that mistreat prostitutes to increase profit margins. Banning prostitution because we haven't properly regulated or supervised it seems harsh. And there are niches within the sex trade that do not engage in mistreatment. Hard to justify closing them down to combat the harmful acts of others. Before banning it I would prefer other options be investigated. Regulation. Co-ops. Protection. Licensing. Whatever. Be innovative.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1228 times

Post #481 by Dog » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:57 am

Why won't anybody think of the transgendered, handicapped, lesbian, ugly fat black woman?

:why:
User avatar
IcE ColD
Registered Broad
Posts: 36060
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Out of Purgatory
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 92 times

Post #482 by IcE ColD » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:05 am

Dog wrote:Why won't anybody think of the transgendered, handicapped, lesbian, ugly fat black woman?

:why:


Don't worry, you just did. There's still hope left!
This whole idea that we are even important is a fucking illusion. We’re just an accident left to our own devices.

Trent Reznor - 24/07/2018

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests