I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. There's reasons there are more black people in prison, no it isn't because they're black, but the fact remains that there are more black people in prison. Factors relating to their skin colour do come into play, though. Mostly to do with economic reasons, it's not hardwired into their DNA.

You seem to think that the only point I'm making is "they're more manipulative because they're women and that's that", which is a massive straw man. I never said there weren't other factors, I was literally pointing it out to further a point I was making, but people have to throw a fit and shout sexism at anything that even comes close to suggesting women are different from men.

Jesus fucking christ, of course there are exceptions, I never said that was the case for ALL WOMEN, I said IN GENERAL. Women and Men are two separate categories when it comes to what I was discussing, they just are. I was pointing out a difference relating directly to gender, but caused by many factors.

As I stated that I agree that women are generally more manipulative (in love terms) than men I did not say it's purely because of how they're biologically designed. They're more manipulative because of years of culture and tradition that had a big influence on how they act nowadays. Also, because they can breed babies, which gives them a certain advantage/disadvantage (depends on the situation) over not-women (I'll use the term "men", because minorities are minorities, and I already used the word "generally" and can't back out now). I can't deny that this instance of not equality between them wasn't the reason the culture and tradition went that particular way, as their roots lie at basic biology.

However, whatever caused that does not change the fact that women are usually like that. Nep never said it's because X or Y. He stated the current situation. He was not neccessarily wrong or whatever. He didn't condemn any sex either, as far as I see. You lot just like to throw a few "Hey look at him, he's so closed-minded" bombs not analyzing what he said.

I call it "the Havoc syndrome", it shows when somebody ignores what another say because that other guy fucks animals.

EDIT: Nep was faster.

Hey, I don't fuck animals bro.

That's ridiculous hahaaahaahaha

I might be missing something, but the way you've written your posts:

It does look like you are categorising all men and all woman, you never said 'in general' a single time. EDIT: For women at least

He did. In one of your quotes. Plus, it's pretty obvious.

I thought I did. If I didn't it's because it pretty obviously goes without saying.

Edit: Varrok was faster

But we're *not* equally fast

when women do it, we call it manipulating.

When men do it, it's called abuse. Ever heard of gaslighting? It's extremely insidious manipulation to the point at which the victim doesn't even know what is real any more, which is the intended outcome. I don't know who does it more to that extent, but I hear about it most often in cases where the man if the perpetrator and the victim is a woman. If it were the other way around, I expect it would be called manipulation instead of gaslighting.

And your last post, Nep, Jesus Christ, do you even know what that means?

That's funny, I'd say you're, by this definiton, doing that gaslighting thing with Nep.

I appreciate honesty, but that means you're critically unprepared for this conversation. This very debate is about who does more of that (generally speaking*), you can't back up what you said through any scientific evidence, yet you're so quick to judge his statements and call it caused by "bad science".

I expected more of you. Especially because of that high-level sentence construction and science terms that make people think you're "that science guy from OWF".

*Do I really need to add it every time, because some of you can't understand it's obvious?

And I did ask for evidence, but none was provided.
I kind of realised we wouldn't get anywhere what with the post BM made defending SJWs on that other thread. Pretty weird because otherwise you're usually such a rational guy.
Unfortunately, yes. However, I'd rather not get into a debate about the ridiculous topic that is 'triggering', given what happened with this last one.

'Triggers' get a lot of shit because a large portion of people use them a little too liberally to the point where the phrase 'this triggers me' has become interchangeable with 'this makes me uncomfortable'. Which is a shame because it's so commonly mocked now that people who actually suffer from PTSD, etc, and are actually 'triggered' by certain things usually get wrapped up into being mocked as well.

I did a bit of research and found this meme site. Apparently Nepsotic was mocking that person, and not the PTSD people or whoever.

To clear things up you should all just watch this short video of a fat guy explaining the point I am too lazy to make.

I wasn't talking about Nepsotic specifically. I meant...




in general.

I know

And about the video, his point about freedom of speech being violated falls pretty flat. Nothing is being violated. If people were legally obligated not to say certain things that might offend others, then there'd be a case, but that's not what's happening. People getting up in arms about something they're offended by is just them expressing their freedom of speech as well.

Receiving societal backlash ≠ being stripped of rights.

As for the rest of his video, it's hard for me to say without being biased because the way he conveys himself in his videos overall just fucking irritate me.

T.A.A. annoys me greatly as well, to the point I can't even listen to what he's saying.

He's talking about the people who do want it to be like that though. It's his reasoning for not going along with the bullshit, and it makes sense.
I like him, because he just doesn't give a fuck. And, I agree with what he says in most cases. He's a funny fucker.

We have completely different definitions of "funny", it seems.

There is nothing ridiculous about content warnings, and if the content seems innocuous to you then all that means is that the warning is not meant for you. It is not your role, right, or responsibility to decide what should or shouldn't invoke traumatic recollections. I don't give a shit whether trigger warnings may have been use to forewarn things that maybe no one is troubled by (and that could not be proven in any case), the only way to misuse them is to leave them out when necessary or lie about your content, which I have witnessed occur with deliberate and stated intent to harm the severely traumatised. So forgive me if I find I have more empathy and regard for those vulnerable to such issues and even targeted for them than with those who must face the non-inconvenience of encountering a warning they do not need.

Then I must have done a pretty poor job of describing gaslighting, because if I'm doing it then so is every school.

I'm not interested in who does more of it. It's bad whenever. I'm not making the case that this side or that side does it more. I'm pointing out common pitfalls in that discussion that the authors of those articles and studies have fallen into, which gets my goat because it's those pitfalls that reinforce absurd stereotypes. I'm quite capable of evaluating papers on their own methodological merits.

All generalisations are wrong, and yes, I appreciate that sentence in it's every aspect. I don't want to talk about generalisations either, and yes, you should make your language clear, it's not obvious, because apparently I'm wrong when I assume that you mean what you actually say, so how likely am I to be correct if I assume a bunch of stuff that you have not said?

I take it then, that earned no trust in my ability to rationally evaluate other issues? I've spent the past three years quietly exploring issues like these and others. You know I like learning new things, that's why I'm into science, and this was the first time in a long while that I stumbled across something interesting that I was previously completely ignorant of. By which I mean, the experiences of people in my culture who are unlike me in some way. Black, gay, trans, female, hispanic, poor, asian, minority religious, this or that mental illness, physically impaired, you name it. And why would I know any of it? I've never had to.

So I listened. That's basically all I've been able to do, because there is so much, and it didn't take long to get over the hump of "this is silly" to "now I'm fucking mad". And since I'm already of the compassionate, leftist, inclusive sort, valuing that knowledge and those experiences and those causes was already my jam. And given the leanings and sympathies that the people on this forum have always appeared to champion I thought that I would find common cause here too, and it has been a constant source of searing disappointment that apparently it is not.

Where would I start you off somewhere palatable to you? Have you never seen The Daily Show, The Nightly Show, or Last Week Tonight? They have certainly been champions of those causes, hardly faultless but generally very good. I mean seriously, what the fuck do you think social justice is?

Generalisations are not wrong, silly. Nor they're right. They're a thing that happens, and whether it's good or bad solely depends on context.

It's like saying all killing is wrong. Don't support killing cancer cells, then

I haven't heard of those, but they sound like lame ripoffs of The Day Today. Especially that last one.
So use them. You're free to. I'm not going to, though.

So put a trigger warning on everything then. Seriously. put one on fucking everything, or nothing. There is no in between here.
And before you bring it up, stuff like "this game contains scenes of explicit violence and gore" are not trigger warnings.

Not necessarily wrong, some can be accurate, but they're useful, when you're talking about a topic in general.

He wasn't very funny in that particular video.

Where do you think stereotypes come from? Thin air? No, they have a basis.
Also, you still haven't provided any evidence to prove me wrong and it seems you're just dodging the question entirely because now we've moved onto a whole different discussion.

Today? It's a bunch of shrill, annoying, entitled attention-seeking piglets with an ego the size of the sun and a brain the size of a fucking planck length.

Yep, I didn't see it when I read through and then a fraction of a second after I posted it I saw it. I fucked up.

though i do appreciate not completely shitting on me for that, it was worthy of it

Remember all those times SJWs bullied women with rape threats and essentially ruined their lives forever because they thought there should be more women in video games?

oh wait must've gotten it mixed up

You must be new to the internet. Have you ever heard of these things called trolls?

Trolls are great for Sarkeesian and her crowd because as you see, they give her a victim card to play and this ensures she gets lots of moneys as she ironically plays the damsel in distress.

HAHAHAHAHAHA PERFECT

Yeah, no reason to play the victim card when you repeatedly get rape and death threats, and have to explain to the local authorities that you may regularly be reported for ridiculous crimes. Over video games. Sorry, that was childish of me to suggest that.

Quinn and other women have had to flee their homes for safety reasons. I don't think they're faking such an inconvenience for video gaemz

I don't understand how you can be this stupid. I've had death threats. Everyone has. It's called being trolled.

If you'd actually look at their Twitter and not just the examples they cherry-pick, you'd see that most people are actually trying to have an intelligent debate. Those examples are always ignored though, even though they are the vast majority.

Are you kidding me right now?
Are you serious?
Tell me you're trolling. Please.

Even, like "I know your home address" type stuff? I feel like I would worry.
Alright, that's fair. You've convinced me that Sarkeesian sucks. But I still agree with the movement.
That's a thing that happened, though. I guess I'll just not mention it again if I can expect that kind of response.

It happenee so they can pull out their victim card and look like a martyr. So people will donate their money to them and so they can make the opposition look like the bad guy by using dirty tactics.