This a totally different person from Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, isn't it? How are you connecting what she's saying to what they were saying?
-
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The TMF is sponsored by:
Women and the comment sections per internet
- Thread starter Ticklerguy4u
- Start date
This a totally different person from Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, isn't it? How are you connecting what she's saying to what they were saying?
Ticklerguy4u
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,533
- Points
- 36
well Anita is in the panel
Ticklerguy4u
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,533
- Points
- 36
Lol...that's funny. I know what you mean.
TMF Jeff
TMF owner and co-founder
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 27,030
- Points
- 83
Then no, I think the men who are so up in arms about this are the children.
It does seem to be a common pattern, doesn't it?
Some groups of people seem to be terrified of what will happen if other groups of people ever become equal to them.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
While the both of you are being smug goony beardman I can't help but notice not one of you has really gone back to the whole "They're making profit off of harassing us on monetized YouTube videos!!!" thing.
What "thing" are you whining about now?
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
That "thing" I posted yesterday the both of you just plowed right past.
You're getting quite douchey in regards to protecting mi'lady from being embarassed by shit they've actually said while having nothing more than "No ur MANBABIES!" and shit about people "fearing equality", you'd do well to actually have any idea of what's being talked about and tone back some of that Reddit-flavored enlightenment that's been spicing up every one of your posts here.
Oh and while we're at it? One of those poor precious princesses instantly backtracked on that very presentation when the entire rest of the internet actually read the thing they were trying to get pushed through, claiming she had no idea what was in it and didn't know what the endgame was prior to going in.
Don't worry though, if you say "manbaby" just a few more times it'll make that not have happened!
TMF Jeff
TMF owner and co-founder
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 27,030
- Points
- 83
You mean this?
I didn't respond because I couldnt make any sense out of it:
What does "Why can't the public speaker can't handle 'you suck'?" mean?
What does "Why can't the academic handle criticisms of her arguments?" mean?
Why wasn't what an issue with Sarah Palin? Harassment and death threats? It was an issue.
I don't have any opinion about that guy being banned, if thats even what youre saying - that too is a pretty poorly constructed sentence and not easy to parse.
And I haven't read your pokemon murder report, and you didnt link to it. So thats why I didnt reply to that either. But frankly it sounds idiotic and I'm sure you're wrong about what it actually is and what it's role in this drama is anyway.
If you want replies, you have to make an effort to explain yourself and declare a point.
Edit: Another afterthought - I also don't feel any need to refute every point raised. I already know that nobody in this thread is going to change their minds. You're not, and neither am I. I want to make sure I explain my point of view clearly, and if there's something said that I have an opinion on I'll certainly speak it. But I'm not going to comment on every single comment that gets made, because A) that would be ridiculous and B) who would even care? Most of what you two are posting is nonsense that even you yourselves don't understand. I'm going to treat it like the Talmud and study it for a full academic response?
I don't see her backtracking at all...she didn't take back anything she said. She disagreed with the conclusions in the report, which was published the day she spoke to the U.N. So... wrong on that point, again.
BTW,... I don't really do the whole personal attacks with anonymous fucks on the internet anymore...it's kind of a waste of time. I don't know you. You are anonymous. I mean, do it as long as you like, but the only person who feels anything because of it would have to be you.
TMF Jeff
TMF owner and co-founder
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 27,030
- Points
- 83
And by the way, I don't see you commenting on my point that the video you linked to was obviously a hatchet job AND STILL didn't say what you wanted to make it say.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
The entire reason she was there was to be a centerpoint on why it was needed. It was, like the both of you are doing here, to put a spotlight on "LOOK WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THESE POOR WOMEN!!!". 'All levels of harassment!'. The fact that this is now the third instance where one of you fedora-tippers have now completely ignored that both of these "victims" have pointed to as a cause of alarm. Something that the closest thing you personally have pointed to was;
Only to find out that, holy shit, that was exactly the plan. That was exactly what the presentations endgame was. They were equating garden-variety internet trolling with organized campaigns of doxxing and harassment. And until she was fed shit over it, didn't really have any issue with it. Sarkeesian still hasn't said anything, which could suggest she's completely on board with the initial plan, and therefore making the point about "equating garden-variety internet trolling with organized campaigns of doxxing and harassment" completely accurate, as from point A to point B that was specifically the point being made, and was only prevented from reaching point D because of "the manbabies" of point C.
No, but you do get down with the whole elementary-tier levels of 'snarky retorts' of your average r/atheism poster and that's much more embarrassing on your end. Have the slightest clue of anything you're talking about without just instantly blurting "GUESS COZ DEY HATE WIMMINS 'ER SUMPTIN'!" and you won't immediately be greeted with a counter you than instantly perceive as a personal attack to try and spin as a "N-no... no U MAD! >:c".
Sorry, I just don't see the diabolical conspiracy that you're shrieking about. I see what happened, and I see what was said, but the conclusions were all yours, and the connections made only in your own head. When the person's statements don't support your claims, you and only you know what's really going on. You really do seem to be projecting a lot.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
Thems big words from someone who just instantly reacted to being made fun of for his condescending little quips with a "Whoa whoa whoa, why are you taking this so personally?!".
Her statement did support my claim, I just posted a nearly half-hour video of a university professor blowing their position apart completely, with chunks of things they've actually said and written about the subject, and you've done nothing but make (incredibly bitter and increasingly unconvincing) remarks about how mad everyone else is.
Did you just not watch the video? Was that it? Are you afraid there's "doxxing and harassment!!1!!" in it? Does it upset you that people are allowed to make videos to dissect these people in the first place?
'Shrieking about conspiracies' is a quality remark coming from people who are running about telling everyone their under constant threat of death and murder from "cyberviolence" obsessed literal-terrorists.
The closest thing I said to what you're accusing me of saying is that I would not get personal with you. I did say you were free to continue to do so. And now, as far as I can determine from what you've posted, you're now attributing what I said with what the victims of doxxing and harassment are saying. So, you're lumping victims in with people who think that doxxing and harassment are wrong? We're all the enemy, now?
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
You're just making shit up now.
Let's go back;
You're then shown where both of the women do bring up "mean YouTube videos where they monetize harassing us!", Jeff over there clarifying 'they're just talking about all levels of harassment!', then are shown where they're both backing a horrible bill that would have absolutely made "harassing YouTube videos!", a huge step away from "doxxing and death threats!" (of which you just said was a manbaby ploy to deliberately undermine their desperate situation), were made aware that exactly what "the conspiracy" suggested was in fact something the organization of which the two women made a huge point about what a big deal it was that they sought their involvement (and only one of which eventually back off from after it became a debacle), and the end result of all this is "... yeah well... you're mad. Quit taking it personal".
Here, let's tl;dr for you;
"They just hate them! They're deliberately downplaying their horrible harassment! They've done nothing like what they're being accused of doing! They're just downplaying this brutal, vicious hate campaign by calling it trolling!"
"What about this massive media campaign where they were key speakers on trying to legitimize regulations that would actually lump trolling in with actual death threats and using horrible sources for it?"
"... WHOA WHOA THERE ELLIOT, drop the glock... nobody's taking this so personal why are you so mad? What you think we're all the enemy now?!"
no. You're just very dumb, assumed you were way smarter than you were and little those witty little "So there!"s lead the brunt of your argument, have been made aware that most of what you said was horseshit, and are trying to make it look like I'm irrationally, personally angry at you.
I'm not, though I'm sure you'll continue insisting I am because what else are you going to do at this point. The fact remains you just said incredibly dumb shit in a hilariously pigheaded manner clearly under the impression you were just going to be able to handwave everything with "But why u hate women tho?".
I think you're minimizing something very serious that happened, that is happening to people, and not only taking it very personally, but you're attributing a lot of rhetoric made by others to the victims to justify further attacking as part of some grand conspiracy against men.
And no, I don't think you're irrationally, personally angry at me. But only a fool would look at your posts and say you're not angry at someone.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
How do you see "me taking it very personally"? That I've spent more than 2 comments pointing out you're completely off the mark? Where do you see me pointing out a "conspiracy against men"?
You don't. You need to infer literally every part of that in order to come anywhere close to that. You're babbling like an invalid and as a result I can't possibly "take it personally". I'm further justifying "Hey they're pointing at shit that very clearly isn't what they're saying it is" by posting a video of them them... pointing at shit that very clearly isn't what they're saying it is. And I think you realize that, because you've all but abandoned that entirely to just reiterate "But I just don't understand why you're so mad...". Over and over again. You've literally just been reduced to "Umad?".
Only a fool would look at the video I posted and say "Yeah, yeah that's up there with a death threat".
No one is saying the things you're saying they are. But you're too busy crafting the characters and writing the dialogue that you can respond to (that they never said) to notice that.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
Whoa whoa whoa why are you so angry?! Do you think I'm you're enemy or something?!
I'm watching it. They're crying about "monetized hate videos on YouTube" and "People making a profit off of harassing Anita and I". It's right there in front of you; "hate videos" are a probelm to be dealt with as well as "death threats". It's literally right there.
Or you know, the scientist and scholar is just a paranoid man screaming about a perceived "war on men". Hmmm shit, who should I give the benefit of the doubt to... scientists, or guy that literally just accused all of these womens detractors of being "afraid of equal right"...
Not gonna lie, it's a tough call.
He started it whos on first.
After reading a bit more, I dont see why anyone would be bothered by what these women are doing or saying. In my opinion, there is too much harassment online in general, however I see women being harassed way more then men. Thats just my perception and im not saying it reflects statistics.
Ive been harassed regularly since i started using the internet in 2001. Both here as well as other sites. Vile sexist shit and even death threats. I let it go, but no one should have to deal with that. It's an unfortunate accepted evil of logging on.
There tends to be at times, more often than not, an underlying current of objectification and dismissal of opinions / condescension towards women both online and in the real world. Add the anonymity of being behind a screen and its not all that outlandish to hear about the problems women face internet wise. Im of the opinion that men have a bit of an easier time on the web. Just maybe not those who approach females the wrong way. Of course, you cant really compare being called a loser to recieving a detailed death threat.
After reading a bit more, I dont see why anyone would be bothered by what these women are doing or saying. In my opinion, there is too much harassment online in general, however I see women being harassed way more then men. Thats just my perception and im not saying it reflects statistics.
Ive been harassed regularly since i started using the internet in 2001. Both here as well as other sites. Vile sexist shit and even death threats. I let it go, but no one should have to deal with that. It's an unfortunate accepted evil of logging on.
There tends to be at times, more often than not, an underlying current of objectification and dismissal of opinions / condescension towards women both online and in the real world. Add the anonymity of being behind a screen and its not all that outlandish to hear about the problems women face internet wise. Im of the opinion that men have a bit of an easier time on the web. Just maybe not those who approach females the wrong way. Of course, you cant really compare being called a loser to recieving a detailed death threat.
Last edited:
Ticklerguy4u
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,533
- Points
- 36
I agree that women online aren't taken seriously as much as men which why its funny that some men would defend these women as if they are incapable of handling anything and must be protected. Which is fine because its been bred into men since they were boys. Spare her feelings, jump in front of her when she is in danger, save the women and children first all men last..etc. I do not doubt you have been harassed unfairly through the years and I will agree majority by men only because you are a women and they want your attention.
But there lies the problem. Sarkeesian and Quinn aren't interested in harassment but only male harassment. There have been women too who have been just as forthcoming with there dislikes, threats, blah..blah..blah. No , this is about women being targets by men. Male patriarchy. If you follow them...you'll see their arguments are very one-sided. So the question is...take women seriously or don't take them seriously. Which is it? If men do---then we are called cry-babies if not then we are called misogynistic because we brush off their pleas.
As you know...not every opinion you have is going to be berated with applause just because you are a woman....and should it be? Is that what women want? To be coddled..shhhhh yes you are big girl...shhhhh it's okay or Yaaaaay you're able to stand on your own two feet ..girl power. A bit condescending don't you think?
Yeah and all over the place. I find it very telling when a man takes offense at something like this. Unless you make it a habit of harassing women, why do you include yourself in that group of behavior being condemned? Why feel the need to defend all men from what these women are claiming?
Also why jump to white knighting when we are talking about female harassment? You have to be a female to state your opinion on whats right or wrong?
The fact that anyone would get offended by someone bringing light to an issue like this really makes me feel like that person finds their strength in superficial places and for some reason that strength is fragile enough for them to feel threatened in some way by this
Also why jump to white knighting when we are talking about female harassment? You have to be a female to state your opinion on whats right or wrong?
The fact that anyone would get offended by someone bringing light to an issue like this really makes me feel like that person finds their strength in superficial places and for some reason that strength is fragile enough for them to feel threatened in some way by this
Let's just say the Chicken Littles are right about everything (regardless of what the facts are), that indeed, the sky is falling, and that these women spoke about, and in the interest of, ending men on the internet (whatever the hell that means). How would that work? And let's say (for the sake of argument) that the U.N. report was published in collaboration with the women who spoke on the panel. That it was all coordinated propaganda. Okay. When has a U.N. report ever mattered to anyone? What kind of effect has the U.N. ever had on American society, except diplomats getting to park wherever the hell they want in NYC?
It's been over a year since Gamergate. Has anything impacted men because of it? Have they lost any rights or privileges because of it? I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they have not.
When has even the most extreme feminist viewpoint resulted in any societal change against men (Anyone remember Andrea Dworkin? How she was going to get pornography outlawed)?
In the years leading up to 1920, people were screaming that giving women the right to vote would destroy society. As we can see, they're still screaming. They've just changed the wording slightly.
