АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE
-
It hasn't changed in years. Every post is a random meme and every meme is several years old now. Although there was a distinct lack over Over 9000 on the front page, but I'm sure that was just luck of the draw.
-
-
LEGO might be a teeny bit too technical though.
-
LEGO might be a teeny bit too technical though.
Try telling that to a determined younger female relative…
-
-
That would suck. I'm just here for the sluts.
-
Well, hurry up, because the article's author wants to ban us all.
I, for one, have a much better idea: Let's just ban all men.
Filed under: Poe's law
-
-
Is it just me or do the article links on the right ruin middle-click-to-open-in-a-new-tab?
-
-
Is it just me or do the article links on the right ruin middle-click-to-open-in-a-new-tab?
I've stated this multiple times, the developers were completely unaware that this is a thing.
-
I'll just leave this here...
-
sounds very.......fabricated.
-
"We believe that everyone, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or disability has the right to play games, criticise games and make games without getting harassed or threatened"
So does the law. Well, there's some leeway on harassment, I suppose.
-
"We believe that everyone, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or disability has the right to play games, criticise games and make games without getting harassed or threatened"
Filed under: Welcome to the internet! Please try to develop a thicker skin.
-
-
First, let's get our definitions correct: No one seems to bother doing this but I rather insist on it.
Conservativism: the belief in the divine right of the monarchy and the preservation of aristocratic privileges..
Liberalism: The belief in a free market system (as opposed to mercantilism). Note that it is an economic theory, not a political position, though it is often associated with republicanism (the belief in government by a selected group under popular assent).
Liberalism and Conservatism are specific terms. They are also terms for two philosophies which are deader than dead in the modern US system of government. Conservatism never held a significant importance in the US, because even when under the British Crown local rule was generally of a republican or even directly democratic sort. Liberalism, which was associated with the American Revolution but not actually part of it - few at the time were seriously suggesting no regulation of the economy, and the Federalists were in fact in favor of using monetary policy to manipulate the economic health of the nation (hence their insistence on the 'full faith and credit of the government', which at the time mostly meant not repudiating the enormous debts the government had built up during the revolution) - was tried and found impracticable. By the Jacksonian era, the idea that one could have an unregulated economy was pretty much forgotten by all but a handful of what are today called 'Libertarians'; as a practical matter, economic power could be translated into political power too easily, and those possessing such power invariably (no matter their espoused views) abused such power to undermine their opponents, hence the need to introduce anti-corruption (and later, anti-trust) action on the part of the government, if only to protect the government itself from outside control. Also, as a practical matter, governments themselves need revenue, and taxation invariably targets some specific interests, skewing the economic balances in one way or another; politicians, being alpha types whose primary interest is their own aggrandizement (again, regardless of their espoused philosophies), are invariably led to abuse such influence. A true free market is only possible in computer simulations.
As for Buddy's statement, he's actually correct, in so far as capitalism and free market are orthogonal issues. Capitalism, at the core, is the ability of the possessor to determine the use of a property (capital) for their own self-interest. Adam Smith himself asserted so, I forget the exact quote but in effect he said that capitalism, unlike free markets, exists in the state of nature (that is, anarchy; it is impossible to prevent except bycoercive force), because possession always implies control of the uses of the property, whereas free markets require intervention to prevent them from being made unfree by coalitions of the wealth-holders or other interests (that quote I do remember: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”).
It is important to recall the circumstances Smith was writing under to understand the difference. At the time the major theory of ownership was that only the Crown truly owned any property; all possession by others were, in effect, loaned out by the State and expected to be held in trust for the good of the nation. Smith, by arguing in favor of private ownership, was actually going against the legal establishment of the time. Similarly, the main trade theory of the time, mercantilism, held that trade needed to be regulated for the good of the Crown, not the good of the individual owners, and saw trade as a political means to an end rather than an economic one. Part of the purpose of holding colonies was that the Mother Country would be able to get the benefits of the raw materials from the colonies, and then sell them back as finished goods to the colonists.
-
First, let's get our definitions correct:
You should do something more useful with your time. Like try to reclaim "literally" and "couldn't care less."
-
I literally could care less about whatever boomzilla just said.
-
I thought the whole point of video games was to harass and threaten others based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability, whether the differences are real or imagined? Or maybe that was just Call of Duty.
-
I thought the whole point of
video gamesthe Internet was to harass and threaten others based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability, whether the differences are real or imagined?FTFM
-
Welcome to the internet! Please try to develop a thicker skin.
I'm not really down with this macho shit like, the way I see it, if someone tries to hurt you, they shouldn't be able to get away with it just because you're trying show everyone how tough you are.
-
I'm not really down with this macho shit like, the way I see it, if someone tries to hurt you, they shouldn't be able to get away with it just because you're trying show everyone how tough you are.
I agree, I don't buy into that macho bullshit either, but my point wasn't about being macho.
In the article, that feminazi lady was claiming that she was getting harassed by people because she is a woman. If that was true, I'd agree that it's out of order. You shouldn't be abused because of your gender, race, colour or creed.
I disagree with her premise though, she wasn't being harassed for being a woman. She was being harassed because she's on the internet. That's what happens when you're online, people are going to troll you. Especially if you're easily offended.
She needs to develop a thicker skin. That being said, some people seem to live to be offended or feign offence at things. It's kinda like they enjoy being offended. Who doesn't enjoy being outraged about things eh?
People like that just want a soap box to preach from. I ignore those people.
Filed under: to each their own
-
I thought the whole point of video games was to tell other people you banged their mom? Or maybe that was just Call of Duty.
FTFY
-
She needs to develop a thicker skin. That being said, some people seem to live to be offended or feign offence at things. It's kinda like they enjoy being offended. Who doesn't enjoy being outraged about things eh?
So they're like reverse-trolls? Is that better or worse than being a forward-troll?
-
So they're like reverse-trolls? Is that better or worse than being a forward-troll?
Well, the beeping sound they have to make while backing up is quite annoying...
Filed Under: Getting Rick-Trolled is even worse
-
I thought the whole point of video games was to harass and threaten others based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability, whether the differences are real or imagined? Or maybe that was just Call of Duty.
Naw, it's to harass (i.e. "HELLO THIS IS CTF, WHAT PART OF 'PROTECT OUR FLAG' DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?" over and over) and threaten ("Do I need to take the flag and beat you over the head with it?") others (especially your teammates) when they insist on playing Slayer in a game of Capture the Flag.
Filed under: CTF is too hard for 90% of the population, I suppose?
-
Oh yeah, the article. You know, I meant to read it, I totally did, but
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the word harassment specifically refers to behavior that is unacceptable, so if someone is getting harassed “they need to develop thicker skin” is no more appropriate than telling someone who is being physically hurt just to man up.
If, on the other hand, someone is getting self-righteously upset about other people's behavior, that's not great either, but a more appropriate thing to say then would be something along the lines of “they need to stop shoving their morality down our throats”.
-
CTF is too hard for 90% of the population, I suppose?
I tried to come up with a comedic misunderstanding of the initialism, but everything I came up with was not even appropriate for this audience.
-
-
I watched that yesterday. Maddox never fails to make a good point, while also being a total prick.
-
Not everyone is an American
-
youtu.be/uGZqOkeYbB0
-
-
I don't have a problem not being American.
-
-
I don't have a problem not being American.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
The word you're looking for is "relief".
-
Maddox is an interesting guy. He has a website that looks like 1997 geocities time-traveler. The fact that people still (according to him) go there, even though he has no RSS or social presence, seems to be a huge point of pride for him.
Also, it appears he was the one to "discover" the ABC helicopter over Robin Williams house thing.
Which he makes a point to whine about in an article on his un-navigable site.
-
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
No denial. I've been to the US, it's a beautiful place in many ways but it's not the same as Europe, I'm afraid.
-
No denial. I've been to the US, it's a beautiful place in many ways but it's not the same as Europe, I'm afraid.
Exactly.
-
@Intercourse said:
Maddox never fails to make a good point, while also being a total prick.
@Maddox's website said:
This page was made using vi in unix. Anything else is for failures.
I concur.
-
-
She was just a proud independent woman standing up for herself and her gender.
you tell it to him sister!
-
Please tl; dr your markov chain next time.
What would that even look like? Two random words?
That sentence made me LLOL, though, so have a like.
-
>Sexual violence
Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually; touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways; withholding sex and affection; always demanding sex; forcing partner to strip as a form of humiliation (maybe in front of children), to witness sexual acts, to participate in uncomfortable sex or sex after an episode of violence, to have sex with other people; and using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex.Say what?
Don't worry, it will only be applied to men, just like the rest. Whatever women do will still be OK.
-
-
Exactly.
-
I'm glad we agree.
-
I can see buddies email here, why?
-
Looks like buddy replied by email?