The Zoe Quinn "Scandal"

[Nissa]

Don't mind Squibb. With regards to feminism, he's as confused by the difference between stated aims through ideology and real-life applications of beliefs as he is by the same in socialism. He still believes that anyone that is against socialism is against the poor, common citizen despite life being objectively worse in socialist countries. Likewise, he thinks that, despite you being female and having a legitimate desire to better the life of women, is party to the oppression of your kind because you acknowledge the difference between said stated aims and real-life applications.

In other words, welcome to my world circa 2009. If you stick with it long enogh, you can rub his failure in his face a few years from now and enjoy endless entertainment. Although I'm not sure it's worth the headache to wait.

Oh, I've seen Demo's posts. I'm not sure I have the patience to deal with the headache, tbh. Though I have an objection to "having a legitimate desire to better the life of women." I don't at all. I want life to be better for everyone. I'm a dang adult, and outgrew the whole "boys vs. girls" thing when I was fourteen. It's utterly nonsensical for people to pretend that men and women need to be at each other's throats all the time like there's not better things to do with our time. Feminism is just an extension of the cruelty I know women to be capable of. The plight of women can only improve when we allow men to improve, and accept that some traditions exist because they are better for society. Otherwise any feminist victory is pyrrhic in nature.

Not that any of that applies to you, Econ, just sayin'.

To address Demo's concerns, feminism is against free speech because it insists that people talk the way it wants. For example, there was once a quote on the Air Force Academy campus, and it said something that involved the phrase "bring me men." Feminists attacked it as sexist, because they like to whine about things that don't matter. They also object to using the pronoun "he" when the gender of a subject is unknown -- they like "he or she." Personally, I avoid "he or she" like the plague, because besides it being pretentious, it's grammatically correct to simply say "he". English is a European derived language, and many European languages have different forms for male, female, and neuter. One of the ways english simplified European tradition was by combining male and neuter. In other words, it's not a way to oppress women.

To be blunt, feminists put a lot of value into words that don't really matter, accusing people of sexism for saying simple things. They accuse me of hating women because I hate abortion. They think it's a sign of the evil patriarchy that more men than women play sports. They think men and women feel the exact way about love and relationships, slandering anyone who says otherwise. So if you're not exactly who the feminists want you to be, they hate your guts.

[DemolitionSquid]

Free speech is, as defined by the dictionary, "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." Free speech is not the ability to say whatever you want without consequences, nor is suppressing free speech the simple redefinition or banning of words and ideas.

I quote you, "Feminism is the death of the intellect and free speech." By your logic, any group that has attempted to redefine or suppress words would therefore be against free speech. However, if that were truly the case, there'd already be no free speech, as far older and more powerful organizations, like the Catholic Church, would have already crushed their resistance. Yet we look at the data and its clear opposing views have more say now than at any other time. Different opinions cause discussion and thus the feminist view you dislike is in fact creating more free speech, not less. That these issues are being tossed into the limelight across media is all the proof I need of that.

[Nissa]

Demo, you're not saying "this other group did it, so that makes it okay" are you?

Besides, the only group I've heard of that's so anal retentive about something as trivial as "he or she" is communist Russia. That is, a group inspiring a nation to judge, hate, and betray everyone that doesn't talk in Newspeak. Excuse me for being a socially unfriendly kulak.

[DemolitionSquid]

Fun fact: Sweden recently added "Hen" as a gender-neutral pronoun to their dictionary.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that feminism is having the same effect on free speech as any other equality-based movement has had in the past, from the African-American Civil Rights Movement to LGBT Pride to simple Religious tolerance. An effect of increasing free speech through discussion and debate.

[Jconant]

You're quoting sweden, who has been doing some things that are just as bat crazy as russia....like "hen"

- - - Updated - - -

You're quoting sweden, who has been doing some things that are just as bat crazy as russia....like "hen"

[Nissa]

Fun fact: Sweden recently added "Hen" as a gender-neutral pronoun to their dictionary.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that feminism is having the same effect on free speech as any other equality-based movement has had in the past, from the African-American Civil Rights Movement to LGBT Pride to simple Religious tolerance. An effect of increasing free speech through discussion and debate.

You're nuts. This has nothing to do with civil rights or LGBT or religious people. It's a matter of vocabulary. I've never seen a black or gay person have a hissy fit about someone's vocabulary, provided that person wasn't making some kind of insulting slur. Feminists think that using "he" as a gender uncertain pronoun is offensive, when it never was. They also argue -- against proven science -- that women are just as enthused as men about sports, and just as lusty and ambitious as men when it comes to relationships and career. They clearly care more about making people think the way they do than actually paying attention to reality.

And the only good thing about Sweden is its techno.

[TheEconomist]

Fun fact: Sweden thinks its icky for a man to pee standing up and should be made illegal and also regulates the proper ratio of male-female toys for children of both genders as early as five weeks old for care takers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1590572.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...ith-it/265977/

Lovely YouTube video of an interview with a Swedish feminist politician who states plainly that male-female gender roles are the result of parents coercing their children into these roles through subtle [insert pseudoacademic term that I don't care to remember] by giving them male or female toys before they are able chose for themselves. When asked why five week old children tended to chose toys geared towards their own gender, the feminist sets off alarms that the future of mankind can only be saved through government regulation to save these defenseless children from parental oppression through gender conforming toy choices.

It's already against the rules for a boy in school to pee standing up in many public school bathrooms. Apparently "my body, my choice" only applies to abortions for women, not urinating for men.New definition of nanny state, run by feminists, who think everyone is their children and that anyone who disagrees (especially women) is too stupid and brainwashed by the patriarchy to care for themselves so the feminists must do it for them. Again, I say feminists are more sexist towards women than any of the male chauvinists I'm seen in real life. Most men want equality (yes, even equality in punishment and responsibility) while feminists don't want any punishment or responsibility for women because their just too fragile and stupid to handle it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...-for-anything/

Luckily for the Swedes, they're one of the most free countries in the world when it comes to business or it would be just another government-regulated clusterfuck of depression and incompetence. Benefitting enormously from Europe's demise also helps greatly.

Also, the difference between civil rights and feminism is that civil rights was an academic debate with thinkers trying to make things better. Feminism is an echo chamber of bitching and everyone is afraid to hurt feminists feelings. Women (especially feminists) are the masters of social manipulation and are able to gain enormous power through government, minorities not nearly as much. A whiny woman holds far more power than a successful, competent black activist (even for the ones respected among the black community). Want to make a point about colonialism, racism, slavery, or whatever else? You better have enormous amounts of research and large lists of sources or you'll get no where. Feminists, however, can write a thesis/disertation with no other sources than the author's movie marathon night. You can also make a statement such as 'black characters die off first' and 'female characters are always [insert statement incredibly sexist towards women by a feminist]' even though the author's own tally in the thesis (the only source) disagrees with the statement. Based on this scholarly work, said person will go on to be the face of cultural feminism critique and one of the major "fighters" of the "patriarchy". If you don't know, I'm talking about Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.

Then again my teacher last semester publically stated in-class and on his website that black students should be exempt from failing grades and the final because the ferguson incidents were just so damn hard to study during. When asked by a student if he would say the samething about children of parents who went to war in the past decades should be given the same he said, "No, because you just wouldn't understand." So then maybe the only difference between the two is that feminists are more effective. But is that really anything to desire?

No, unless you're retardedly dense and completely unaware like a Squibb (Human husk robot created from human body parts and connected to a Hivemind hellbent on destroying said husks, from Quake) then you know better. But that's why I call you the Squibb. It just never ceases to describe you perfectly.

I really want to say more, but I really, really, really hate wasting my time on social justice idiots. So much more to do in this world.

[Nissa]

It's okay, Econ, we all have to let it out sometimes. And yes, women are pretty dang manipulative. Our form of evil is much more subtle, which is while there'll never be a female Mao/Hitler/Stalin. Actually, now that I mention it, that sounds fascinating. The differences between men and women of evil sounds like a great thesis topic.

All I can testify to is the observable differences between male and female coffee drinkers, which I've discovered through working at a coffee shop. Male drinkers tend to be routine driven: they find something they like and stick with it. They also prefer to drink either regular coffee or our custom ice slushies, rather than hot, fancy espresso drinks. Women, on the other hand, tend to try new things more often. Black women are more concerned with flavors, and are more likely to complain when they can't taste a flavor in a drink. White women care more about the caffeine content. It was pretty funny. When our cafe was being shut down (remodeling the building) and we ran out of caffeinated espresso, no one really cared besides the white women. They would, upon hearing the news, turn to whoever was with them in horror.

I don't know if that means anything. Trivial information makes me happy.

In any case, feminists need to realize that chivalry exists for the sake of men directly, and for women only indirectly. When men learn to treat women well, they become kinder, more responsible people. If a feminist rejects chivalry, then she's rejecting her right to be treated well, and refusing men the ability to become the kind of man she'd want to date. Like I've been reading in my sex differences book, studies have proven that women prefer men with traditionally masculine characteristics. This even holds true in feminist circles.

[TheEconomist]

Haha, that's funny. I've noticed the exact same thing from the coffee drinkers in my classes. I've also noticed something similiar to your "blacks tip less" comment from a while ago in that blacks with the same income are less likely to pay rent than others. Not being racist. Whites aren't the best since Asians and Mexicans (probably afraid of ICE) pay better than whites. But, I can't help but notice these things and I shouldn't be guilt-tripped or threatened with force just because I notice what's in front of me.

[Nissa]

Haha, that's funny. I've noticed the exact same thing from the coffee drinkers in my classes. I've also noticed something similiar to your "blacks tip less" comment from a while ago in that blacks with the same income are less likely to pay rent than others. Not being racist. Whites aren't the best since Asians and Mexicans (probably afraid of ICE) pay better than whites. But, I can't help but notice these things and I shouldn't be guilt-tripped or threatened with force just because I notice what's in front of me.

I've never noticed a racial difference between tipping. Older white men, who tend to be set in their ways, generally tip little or one exact amount every time. Other than that, I haven't noticed any other differences. My mom worked in a restaurant, and she says people with tip-related jobs and gay men tipped the most.