Including you, tbh.


A lot of "crazy internet feminists" shit is utterly inconsequential yet seems to garner a ridiculously disproportional of outrage from sexually frustrated teenage boys. It's like this generations equivalent of old people getting angry at some ethnic dole bludger caricature that doesn't really exist.

God forbid somebody actually criticise toxic ideologies.

I think they look cool.

I have a problem with you bringing up Sarkesian, but before I explain why I want to explain what she is.

She's lucky, but almost chiefly opportunistic. I think Anita Sarkesian found a niche to express something a lot of people who don't know better found easy to agree with, and carried that rhetoric forward to continue appealing to these same people. As such, she's trapped in this role as the great Feminist Video Gamer, an entirely meaningless role and title. She'll be a cultural footnote at best and replaced by someone even more conniving and inflammatory at worst. I think that if she is motivating more girls into the game development industry, that's a good thing, but she hasn't done anything to actually improve how trite and tone-deaf gaming is in general. It's a leisure activity that had a necessity for ideology foisted upon it sometime in the last 20 years. It's like politicizing a fucking board game, there's only so far the literal connotations of Monopoly can be scrutinized before you realize it's just kind of a shitty game anyway.

My problem with you positing Sarkesian as something harmful is that The Amazing Atheist is the exact same person. He found a niche (beleaguring simplified arguments for the good religion does with an adolescent level of condemnation) and stuck to it. Neither Anita or TAA are going to grow as people though. One of them is trapped in a role she was never a capable enough activist to actually do something with and the other is just genuinely ignorant and wishes to remain so. I think you can't be concerned about one without recognizing the same toxicity in the other; they both argue an extremely narrow and generally contrarian way of examining their culture of choice without actually contributing something to it. You really can't hate one without understanding you love the other for the same reasons.

The real problem is the culture of divisiveness we allow ourselves to become embroiled in, through no distinct individual's agency or will, people have found an infinite number of topics to shit all over each other about on the internet. Gamergate and Atheism: Two words for something that doesn't really have any meaningful presence whatsoever. Atheism is widely interpreted as an absence or erasure of god, because it's hard to comprehend the complete, inevitable silence that is no god at all. I don't believe in any god, though I could accept an infinite celestial being might exist on some combination of dimensions or another, it's not any human god and it's not in any way connected to us. It's a purely (and puerile) scientific concept in my mind, not tied to any smelly old books.

Gamergate is a desperate attempt to make the culture surrounding games seem grown up and dramatic instead of just boring and human. The same way that the actual construction of a game is an incredibly tedious process, especially as the projects get bigger, so too is the widening maw of 'atheism' just one big breath before a yawn. If you have nothing to say to this god who isn't there, don't proclaim how important that is. Just get on with your day. If you're not going to just play a video game, don't start pretending some interpersonal bullshit that has nothing to do with you is actually affecting your ability to enjoy a video game. Anyone who got upset over any side of gamergate was just wrong to get hung up on it in the first place, and any atheist who hasn't dropped the whole 'religion is just 100% bad no question' ~one month in needs to find some new topic. I wrote a blog earlier that illustrates how this applies to the religious as well: Shut the fuck up and stop pretending what you believe isn't horrible and weird.

My reasons for thinking The Amazing Imbecile is not only ignorant, but also dishonest and contemptuous (like Sarkesian) is based on a simple personal anecdote that has stuck with me for several years. One of the first times I was browsing reddit TAA was doing an AMA and IMO it was TMI.

Anyway, he got asked some question like 'Yo did being a fat guy who yells like a child on the internet ever get you laid?' (paraphrased)
To which the obvious response of no, of course it wouldn't, was completely avoided and Amazing Anal cyst claimed that when he was in the lineup for a movie, some random girl happened to recognize him and later that night he was having sex with her. Let me illuminate that this story reeks of bullshit. Even then I thought it was completely inexplicable and didn't make any sense, but with every year I just get annoyed with how bad of a lie it was in the first place. That kind of thing doesn't happen if you're still a fat, childish loser in real life, which TAA definitely is. So that kind of self-serving, masturbatory nonsense is what rules this guy's life, and I find him even more loathsome for not only being gross and hateful, but incompetent and stupid as well.

So suddenly this is an attack on TAA as opposed to the points he brings up? Ok, then.
Except she completely lied about such a role. She isn't a gamer and doesn't know very much about videogames at all. She's a liar who spreads harmful misinformation about a hobby no less harmless than enjoying movies or books.

It's not like that at all. Monopoly doesn't have much to it (of course, that doesn't mean one can't read into it) whereas many videogames do. They're an art just as filmmaking is an art. It can offer ideas, spark discussions and be pretty deep in general.

Yeah, no, this isn't the case.
He's frequently admitted that religion has been a source of good in the past but that most of its core ideas are not. His stance in the subject is surprisingly unbias and I think if you took the time to watch more of his content you'd see it. A large fraction of the internet blindly hates him, and almost sees him as this one dimensional, being of absolute evil. They tend to have only seen a few of his videos (if any), and judge hin solely based on his more fiery younger self. Usually when he gets brought up in the comments section of an unrelated video/forum, it turns into a mindless, strawman, circle jerk, on how horrible he is. They see him as an atheist Satan.

There's also the point that a vast percentage of his content isn't focused at all on religion. People tend to find the topic that he's talked about in which they disagree with him on, and flame him based on that.

TJ actually has though, and you can see it in his videos throughout the years.

Implying that anything needed to be done in the first case? She's not an activist, she's a con artist. She accepts 1/4th of a million dollars worth of donations on a promise to produce content she never produced. Nothing about her content has improved after taking the money though. Odd.
Of all the words used to describe TAA, "ignorant" is the most common, and aggressively untrue. He's changed his views on topics many times, and he actively debates people of the opposing position. He researches his topics well and doesn't sit inside an echo chamber. I don't think you can call that ignorant.

Unlike Anita Sarkeesian, he never claimed he was contributing to society. He's always openly admitted to being a fat guy raging on the internet.
Narrow and contrarian? I assume you're talking about his views on religion, which is funny because anybody who disagrees with someone will criticise the opponent as being "narrow minded" simply because they don't share the same opinion as them.
TAA is often called a misogynist for criticising feminism but then called a Tumblr SJW for calling out racism (where there is genuine racism) and defending the kid who brought a clock to school and got arrested for it.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. People often misinterpret it as us making a claim that god does not exist, which is not the case.

GamerGate has a bad reputation because of the widespread and untrue criticism that it is misogynist (noticing a common theme, here?). Of course, like other groups with no leader (Anonymouse, for example) anybody with bad ideas can label themselves as being part of the group and make the claim that said bad ideas are core to the group. GamerGate is simply the movement protesting the lack of ethics in videogames journalism. It has caused various sites to rethink their ethics policy and has overall been a success and a force for good.

Unfortunately, trolls labelling themselves as GamerGaters reinforce the victim complex central to the feminist ideology.

I'm sorry, but this is a terrible argument. Religion promotes ideas and what you're saying there is that we should not criticise said ideas. No idea should be immune from criticism, and the notion that it should is fascism.

It might be silly to come back at a critique of The Amazing Atheist with The Amazing Atheist, but this is the best rebuttal to your argument I can recall. Instead of spending the time to write it up in my own words I'm going to post the video because I'm on my phone here and I can't be arsed.


I'd say that ethics in games journalism is not a bad idea to be passionate about.

I agree with you 100%. There has been much evidence to support that religion has contributed some good to society in the past. As I've already established, TJ agrees with this, too.
I agree with this point, also.

TJ has rarely been shown to be a liar. Angry egotistical arsehole? Sure. Not really a liar though.
Of course, that story could totally be bullshit, but let's be honest, it's not exactly hard to believe. And it would be pretty weird for him to lie about that when he's been honest about other things that put him in an even worse light (in some people's eyes). Bananagate, comes to mind.
From what I've come to understand, TJ is a pretty honest guy, and as you can obviously tell, doesn't particularly care for trying to make himself look cool.
Again though, of course it could be a lie, not much reason to assume it was though. And even if it was, what does it have to do with anything, and how does it make his points any less valid? It's a pretty ad hominem point to make. If you can find the Reddit thread though, I'll have a read through it.

He's gross, but I don't know if I'd call him hateful. He's easily infuriated by stupid people and bad ideas.
He's definitely not incompetent or stupid, though. I'd like you to give me examples, because I've followed him for a while and from my perspective he's an intelligent individual without a doubt.

Damn, I thought my post was pretty clear and reasonable Nep. Why do you feel the need to defend this guy? Time for a different tact.

My anecdote (take my word for it, I couldn't manufacture a story that idiotic without outside assistance, it's real) makes his points less valid by illustrating he's a dishonest, adolescent fuckboy who doesn't understand women and does stupid shit like shove a banana into his ass and share the pic with people. It didn't happen Nepsotic. Unless you're Ryan Gosling, chicks don't drop their panties because you're youtube-famous, especially if you're fat and whine about religion all the time. I don't care if he was prepared to laugh at himself about the banana, it's the only damage control he had.

Don't try to refute my points by making the 'you just don't get him' argument. I've been aware of the Amazing Atheist a hell of a fuck of a lot longer than you have yet his entire shtick hasn't changed one iota in ~8 years. He might articulate his stupidity a little clearer, but less than a year ago he was lumping all muslims together as 'more than a few bad apples'. I think the fact that he says things like this on a platform that reaches impressionable young people makes him a fucking piece of shit.

I hate watching his videos, I really do, because his is an aggressive, pointless and impotent kind of stupid that justifies itself by pulling people into the abyss with him. He's the reason we have so many fucktards jumping all over religion without reading more than a collective paragraph of religious text. You are making yourself stupider by enjoying his videos and begging for more. It is stupid to expect me to change my opinion on him when I've been listening to his idiotic vitriol several years longer than you.

Remember after Charlie Hebdo, when you posted some video where he said something along the lines of 'I don't call him the Prophet Muhammad, I call him the SCUMFUCK Muhammad.'? I don't want to quote my post since it was perfect then and reposting it now would be unfair, but he was spewing that same kind of blindly hateful garbage years ago.

If you're going to just shit on the idea that they are both con artists, one dumb, one greedy, I'm not going to pretend this is a conversation worth having Nepsotic. You need to introspect a little and frankly stop being so ready to praise some neckbeard who doesn't know what he's talking about. TAA makes broad, sweeping generalizations directed at a specific kind of equally-ignorant person to get youtube views. He is not genuine. He is not an academic. He is not worth listening to for the exact reasons you think he is: He's a simpleminded fool who is subtly leading you down a trail of ignorance.

See, I just don't understand how you can sit there, defend the guy, state Sarkesian is a 'con artist' and expect me to try to change my tune when you're missing the point of my posts entirely: Stop thinking in this black and white bullshit. It doesn't matter how much detail you have on these people, it doesn't matter what hateful garbage frames them, start forming your own opinions. That starts with reading, and reading, and readingreadingreading until you can't even remember how to search for things on youtube properly. Consume information aggressively, don't allow yourself to be told what to think at your leisure.

Jesus Christ, I didn't think I'd have to go this far, but Sarkesian DOES produce content and although facile, her points about feminising gaming are a lot more relevant than another 19 minute video of 'fuck the muslims'. She popped up in some twitter pic with Joss Whedon over the summer, for crying out loud The significance there is that Whedon is a wealthy hollywood type with some clout amongst nerds. Is she the smartest feminist I know? Fuck no, but I'd rather she influence video games to be more appealing to girls (and ideally, smarter and more thoughtful in general) then TAA influence young men like yourself to be filled with blind loathing for things you don't seem to understand in the first place.


I said it before, and I'll say it again: TAA's character needs to be called into question when young people blindly follow whatever he says and are willing to defend what is genuinely lazily constructed, ignorant hatespeech. He's not saying anything good, nor is he saying anything new in a creative way. We've had patronizing, self righteous scum like him for thousands of years, and regardless of the mighty soapbox that holds him up, he's still a tiny man who is either frightened or too arrogant to acknowledge modern theological discussion. If you took one of his videos to a Theology classroom and tried to checkmate those folks with it you'd be laughed out of the school. I really mean it when I tell you in the adult world, patronizing and condescending as it is to imply you are not part of it, TAA and people like him are sort of an inside joke, the archetypal NEET vindicated by an income dredged out of his crappy opinions.

I'm not going to sit down and pick apart a video that is designed to get 12 year olds to send him money on Patreon, nor am I going to pretend it isn't frustrating that you'd rather assume my attacks on his character carry any more substance than the objective fact that he is willfully ignorant and unable to argue with anything but the simplest tennets of theology.

All I want for you, Nepsotic, is to engage yourself in more thoughtful discussion on these topics because once again it is so easy to just watch a video, like it and assume that's where the conversation ends. As you can probably tell, I'm not interested in the subject matter itself. The role I've given myself is to analyze the commentary and suggest what is healthy and considered and what is simple and manipulative, both Anita and TAA fall into the latter. My point is that these people are entertainers, and you're doing yourself and that wonderful piece of meat lodged between your ears a disservice by getting at all caught up in their world instead of expanding your own, and I'm going to go all folksy on you again and tell you that in this day and age reading is the best way to consume information, especially reading directly from a book (or from an e-reader, those things are neat.)

Read some Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Good ol' Charles Darwin and even Douglas Adams for a bit of perspective. I'd say 99% of the reason I take such a fluctuating and inventive take on things is because Dougie Adams taught me to laugh at how ass-backwards things are just by being the way they are, and you can't get that surreal and wonderful sense of things by letting yourself be told what you're comfortable with, over and over and over again.

And let me say this, then I should really hit the hay since I have 2 hours of classes in the morning and a lot of masturbation to catch up on: It's absolutely fine if you just like his videos. I'm not judging you for liking what I don't like, but I believe it would be to your benefit as an intellectual to take a more nuanced approach to dissecting things, especially religion. You read my most recent blog right? So you know the best way to get on my nerves is learn a lot about religion and talk about it constantly, just advertise how much you know about it. You do that, and frame it in a way that makes me laugh, and I'll be your #1 fan.

I'm quite shocked of how much you guys can write about that old case. I'm certainly not going to read it all now, but I'll try to summarize this page by quickly scrolling through it and highlighting the things I noticed the most.

Okay, let's go!

-Fedoras are part of toxic ideologies
-Religion sucks

Proud of ya

It was a trilby, dude.

http://img.ifcdn.com/images/d0ed744c...74619e8d_1.jpg

Either way. They look stupid.

They look cool on old-style noir detectives.

Because I've not seen this side of him you think represents him, and I'm relatively sure I know more about him. He's someone I quite admire because I agree with him on most topics, and despite usually having a controversial opinion, he doesn't give a fuck and will say it anyway. He looks at a lot of things from a different perspective, and I like that.
I feel that you, on the other hand, don't know him well enough to understand. He's not a very well-liked figure because people often dismiss his opinions and call him a racist or a sexist. Of course when the internet dislikes something and you haven't had much exposure to said thing, you're going to side with the internet because all you hear are bad things.

What does what he does in the privacy of his own home have to do with anything? Who gives a shit? If Neil DeGrasse Tyson was actually a massive sado-masochist and a video of him doing something fucked up got leaked, would that make his points or credibility any less valid? Of course it wouldn't, but people would throw a hissy fit anyway because reasons.
I don't really care if the story he posted was a lie, it's totally believable and even if it was a lie, so what? What does that have to do with any of his views or points? It's not exactly an ad hominem, but it may as well be.

He definitely has, and how would you know? It's not as if you regularly keep up with his content. I don't understand the correlation between the time someone's been aware of him and their knowledge about him. I've watched a lot more of his videos of him than you have, you knowing about him longer doesn't mean you know him more. I'd probably beat you on a quizz of Doctor Who, but you've probably been aware of it longer than I've lived.

You can't really argue with statistics unless you have some of your own. Instead of calling him a fucking piece of shit, why don't you attempt to refute that point?

You've said a lot there without actually saying anything, so I'm just going to leave that.

So you're saying thay somebody who married a nine year old, made up a religion centred around the premise of getting 72 virgins if you obey it perfectly in order to trick people to fight in his battles in order to steal from less fortunate people and rape their young girls, is not a scumfuck?

Why are you under the impression that I'm praising him as some sort of genius? He's shown that he's a smart guy despite what you say, and I find myself agreeing with him on many points, not because I am told to, but because that's what I think.
You're the one making claims about the guy, so provide some sources. Tell me exactly where he makes broad, sweeping generalisations because as far as I can tell he's more sane and rational than the vast amount of people I've seen online.

I don't think you understand that just because something is in written text, that doesn't necessarily make it any more credible than a YouTube video. I don't understand why there's such a stigma against agreeing with an unpopular opinion.

That's a lovely straw man you have there. Her content consists of barely any sensical points, and all "look how much of a victim I am." Summing TAA up as 'fuck the Muslims' is as retarded and ignorant as you're trying to make him out to be.

That's because Whedon is a feminist-pandering little willy.
The words 'smart' and 'feminist' don't usually go together in a sentence but Christina Hoff Sommers is a rare example of one.

I don't think you have watched one of Anita's videos. It's not at all about making games more appealing to girls (people forget that girls make up about 50% of the gaming demographic anyway due to dumb mobile games like Candy Crush), it's about taking what she can out of a hobby many people enjoy and making it about herself and how much of a victim and martyr she is. Quite simply, she's a piglet, sniffling around in the dirt for truffles and then eating them.
Remember the more you think you are not affected by Anita's videos, the more likely you are to be affected.

It's not about loathing and it's not things that I don't understand, they are things that aren't difficult to understand, the difference is a lot of people don't see through the bullshit.


For god's sake, give me some examples or I'm just going to skip over it. You're not actually making any points here.

That's not exactly true, he can be quote poetic at times.

Even though he's one of the most unpopular people on the internet?

Is this supposed to be a point? His content isn't really intended for scholars or students. He isn't a university lecturer. He's a guy that speaks his opinions on the internet.
He actually does read a shitload, and often knows what he's talking about.


I have adult friends that like him. A good few.
Also, he makes his money off YouTube and you're berating him for that? I've had this argument before but the short of it is that it's a pretty retarded and hypocritical point to make.

Surely you know he openly admits he's a massive shill.

Sources? He encourages debate and despite what you assume, doesn't endorse being in an echo chamber. They regularly have guests on Drunken Peasants with opposing viewpoints.

And that's exactly what you assume I do, and that's exactly what I don't do.

Why? It's the same thing. Anybody can get a book published and Neil Black Science Man has a YouTube channel. Would you rather I read Twilight than watch Mysteries of the Universe?

But of course you realise that there's no difference between what those people do and what TJ does? You just disagree with him, it's a logical fallacy I can't quite remember the name of.
Also, Thomas Aquinas is overrated.
I've read up on him and his "5 proofs" are utter, easy to debunk bullshit.

Oh I don't know a lot about it. I never said I did. I have learned much about it but that doesn't mean I can't criticise what I already know. I dont2 think the Bible ends with "and then Jesus woke up, and realised it was all a dream."

I don't give a shit if you don't like TAA, there's plenty of reasons to dislike him, I just think your criticisms are misguided and generic. It's what everyone says about him yet it's just not true.

Umad fam

http://puu.sh/ktBtW/2a697aba23.png

oops

I bet that's the longest post on OWF.

Before I get into this, let's talk about Crashpunk.

I like Crashpunk. I like him because I was kind of a dick to him in general (long time ago, I feel) and he made this respectable, grown up, possibly subconscious decision not to engage me or prod my hornets nest of a mind because (I assume) he just didn't want to be bothered with now mean I am. I wish I had that sensibility, not at his age but in general, because it's very easy for me to take someone else's willful ignorance personally. I like Crash because he's a reasonable, thoughtful, charming fella. He's unapologetic about being what I would consider a very nice person. And now, let us never speak of it again.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have me and Nepsotic, who regardless of our respective ideologies get so rooted into a topic we're ready to snap at every dumb little thing the other says in order to feel superior for the 12 hours or so it takes to get a reply. Now, I'm done after this post because I wasted a lot of time this week trying to convince Nepsotic not to fall into the trap of feeling needlessly divisive about crap that is irrelevant to the bigger picture of living a happy life, and I'm considering whether posting the 8 paragraph tirade I just assembled is useful or even warranted in this discussion based simply upon how Crash and Varrok make a very good point against nep just by insulting him for actually owning and liking a fedora, which is only an acceptable garment if you're a 32 year old woman (because I sexed one who owned a fedora.)

Let me just switch myself on.
Alright...poop check. Hamburger check. Regular exercise check. Flirtiness check. Lack of fedoras in a three mile radius check. History of hyperbolic anger check, ohh wow, working at 110% huh? Today is a good day.

Alright, let's proof this piece...
Nah. I'm not posting that. Let me try again:

Nepsotic, I want you to reframe this discussion: Let's say every statement I made about The Amazing Atheist was directed at you. Let's say you're this ignorant, lazy, unacademic character I'm railing against and my point in doing so is not to dissect why you like something, such as what that thing says, but trying to reason with you to take a less polarized approach to how you look at that thing. Once again, it's fine to like shit I don't like. I don't personally like the Amazing Atheist because I believe he represents the 'bad' way of forming and articulating an argument: Hauling himself on top of a soapbox that can disguise his backwards beliefs for the sake of a 'greater cause'. I think he's cowardly precisely because he uses his position as a 'speaker for atheists' to spout what is clearly his own personal bigotry and cultural bias.

'Ethics in gaming journalism'? Just remove the gaming journalism part. Are gamers, or the people who report on them unethical people simply because they all share an interest in Gaming? Of course not. So you can't presume to accuse 'gaming journalists' of being unethical or invest yourself so much in them when the real problem is your inability to just say 'that is fucking stupid and has literally nothing to do with me'. Once again, being critical is fine. Finding what's wrong with the world is fine, it's just that you've gotten hung up on something that isn't wrong. It's human nature to fuck, and all I've ever gotten from the 'I'm a REAL Gamer' side of Gamergate is a repressed hatred of women based on their own inability to do so. The idea that you politicize some bimbo giving some asshole a rimmy in order to get a good review is arrogant because that is a bottom-of-the-barrel imitation of the real corruption that poisons this world. You are not any better than these feminist caricatures you loathe so much because what you're spouting is Grade-A Hatred, and I know hatred when I see it.

It doesn't actually affect your ability to play and enjoy games unless you allow it to. I'm not deluding myself into thinking this will change your ways Nepsotic, but I feel better knowing I at least told you to clean up your act and stop accepting blind hatred as a reasonable way to look at things.

I think how you interpret and articulate feminism is, well, disgusting. It just sounds like you think some uppity cunts wanted to ruin your day for no reason when the basic idea that More women should be involved in the development of games isn't actually detrimental, and you pigeonholing Sarkesian as these evil, non-gaming witch is just hypocritical. Why should I ever spend the time picking apart each and every trusted word of TAA when yo A) Are clearly in love with him and B) Are doing the exact same shit when you discard 'feminism' as this thing that just wants to corrupt your hobby. That is idiotic and shortsighted.

Now, if you make another diarrhea of a post that reads like some tit from 4chan nitpicking every single statement while ignoring the point, I'm just fucking done talking to you at all. Use essay format or get the fuck out.

Was it that insulting? It's just a hat. I basically just copied what the other guy said

Why? I don't like that format, I like to break it down and respond to specific criticisms.

Here's what I think in essay format: You're wrong. There's literally no point going into further detail because then you'll just ignore it and talk about what a blind hateful child I am, and how I don't see things from the other side; I do see things from the other side, I don't think you do.
I'm not going ti continue to debate you on feminism
because it's pretty clear that you don't see past the bullshit, so there's really no point. I don't care what you think of my attitude towards it. Piglets can go and sniffle around in the dirt for truffles, somewhere else.

Also, it's fucking dumb to make fun of someone owning a hat because, "oh, the internet makes fun of it so I gotta go with what the internet says!" I bought it to be provocative because I think it's funny how hypocritical one can be when they see somebody owns something which everybody forgot why they were mocking it in the first place.

It's like Internet Explorer, people don't actually realise IE is a fucking good web browser and much more efficient than Chrome or Firefox, but it's cool to hate it. Edge has been getting a lot of good reviews, thing is it's literally IE, they just changed the name because they pretty much had to, because of people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Similarly, I look good in a trilby and it annoys people, so it's a win-win.

http://puu.sh/ktWYm/4ecf47bb37.png

I lost it when Nep said IE is a good browser

IE is a good fucking browser. When was the last time you tested it? Do you even know why you think it's bad? No, you don't. Start thinking for yourself.

Aww thanks Mac :)

Also jeez. This over a fucking hat? I just called the hat dumb. I didn't call you dumb for wearing it. Wear whatever you like.

I hate hats in general. I look shite in them. (Apart from virtual ones in TF2. Those are frigging cool as heck.)

Oh and your right. IE isn't as bad as people say it is. The reason why people hated it in the first place was because it was out dated for a long time, poorly coded and crashed often. Edge is pretty decent too.

Look fellas, The Onion wrote an article about Nepsotic!

No, you like to nitpick statements so that you can ignore what people are actually saying because when your hateful non-linear bullshit comes up against a reasonable argument it repeatedly falls short, also great job changing this from 'Nepsotic, stop being a shitty little bigot' to 'The amazing Atheist isn't so bad, I mean I, trilby owner and internet superstar Nepsotic like him!'

We're mocking you for owning a fedora because you've been behaving like the epitome of self righteous, internet dwelling neckbeards with zero fashion sense and too much time on their hands. You aren't the exception to the rule motherfucker, you are the rule.

That analogy blows if you ask me. You're internet explorer? You're a human subreddit, desperate to be both niche and contrarian but popular and correct. Is it wrong for me to assume women don't pursue you because they can find any other gross nerd who at least won't call them a pig on the internet behind their backs?
I've had actual experiences with women that would launch a whole new thread like this from your hateful little ass, real nasty stuff. It just shows that some people are good and some aren't. What the fuck have you done or had done to you personally to justify hating any group? Read some wikipedia articles on Women's suffrage and thought 'meh, that's not a big deal'? You've turned into such a hateful little idiot it makes my head spin.

Hahaha, holy fuck. You keep using that piglet analogy and see how the ladies just keeps gravitating towards you. People like you are a fucking joke, and the immense kindness I demonstrated in putting up with your retarded ass for the last week has earned me some grade-A poontang tomorrow night, because it's pub night. Want to know what I'm going to do? Be nice to a woman, act like a bit of an asshole, be nice, asshole, nice, asshole so on until she's gushing. I apologize for that vivid image, but feel free to masturbate to the idea that you could pull that off with some of the drivel you've expressed in this thread. I bet you'd be a fun guy to go pubbing with if you could just get the fuck over yourself.

See, that's a little bit of functional mysoginy. That's how you get to act once you overcome the hill of 'not hating groups of people billions in number'.

Now you might not call yourself a bigot (why would you?) or a mysoginist, but the guy you present yourself as through these posts is definitely those. You can't not trust women as a whole Nepsotic. It's...well, it's an evolutionary dead end. You can be aware that young women are just as selfish as young men, but you can't go whole hog (snort) and start describing socially active members of their gender as 'pigs' because you disagree with them.

What you say is hateful and massively, massively sheltered. So keep hiding in your hugbox, avoiding women and calling them piglets because they aren't digging through the pile of shit your mind rests in to find the good in you.

What this thread has shown to me: Nepsotic is angry at THE LADIEES and he doesn't want to 'get' women and he pays it forward cyclically to get angrier and angrier because I don't think he knows any better, and I really get that. I really get feeling some blind anger for nothing and everything and not seeing how it needs to be articulated into what's really wrong. I'm not trying to project too much of my experience onto you (no one wants my life projected onto theirs, except maybe starving babies)

I think anyone who refers to women as a 'snuffling bunch of pigs looking for truffles' is going to deserve whatever abject loneliness he brings upon himself if he can't introspect and clean himself up a bit. I've spent more time this week trying to politely explain why acting like a hateful little brat is going to get you nowhere in the real world than studying, and your only interest is in defending some fat asshole from the fact that I think he's a joke for whining about the religious and sticking fruit up his butt. So kudos on wasting my time instead of considering being needlessly angry at shit that doesn't affect you is unhealthy. Stop presuming that somehow you 'get it' because you spend all your time reading hateful bile on the internet, because that seems like the case.

I've seen your perspective. I've lived it, maybe not as long as you have, but I get it and condescending as it seems I think I'm doing you a favour by telling you not to let yourself get needlessly caught up in hating jokers like Sarkesian or praising dudes who just use a sociological soapbox to express their own deep-seated resentments.

I think you would not be caught dead speaking like this to any woman face to face. I think that's because either deep down you understand it's not just inappropriate, it doesn't work in this day and age or that you're just a fucking coward with no concept of what he's actually upset about. It's bad to be that person. I think you had plenty of opportunity to man up and say 'You're right, hatespeech is wrong. Maybe I should stop pinning my frustrations on feminism and the like' and you didn't take it, so fuck you. You throw the word strawman around like you haven't been treating everyone like some white knight feminazi when our whole point is just 'calm the fuck down and stop saying hateful shit about women'.

Oh, you see through the veil of bullshit on feminism huh? Damn Nep, where's your social justice group advocating outrageously upset young men who hide behind the internet to hate on women? I want to see the political party of 'I masturbated to cartoons as a child and now I hate women, what gives?'
because I need you to start forwarding their newsletter to me ASAP

My sisters, they're both feminists of a sort, University graduates with careers and lives, I think you'd like them. No, that's not an exaggeration. They're great people who don't force people to suffer under any illusions regarding what they're about or what they're like.That's feminism to me: they manned the fuck up and made a life for themselves, so why don't you do the same before you start coming down on Muslims or Women or whatever group you think deserves to hold the cup of your loathing at this time of year.

Understand that when I label you as an ass-backwards, ignorant, lazy child, I'm not judging. I'm just reflecting how you want to present yourself to the world right back at you, and maybe you don't like being perceived that way. Maybe, painful as it might be, admitting you're on the wrong side of an argument is a lot healthier than committing to the wrong side. You want a statistic Nep? Show me the statistic of AntiFem fuckwads who post hateful garbage on social networks unable to get work, because that number remains at a steady 100% (or whatever. There's no way that's a real statistic. Anyway statistics=/=subjective experience)

You post that line about women being snuffling pigs on facebook and see how far that gets you. Throw it on a dating profile. It's such an ugly, terrible thing to say that I'd redact this whole argument to see you be accountable and own up to what a nasty, backwards statement it is.

I'm going to take a running leap and assume something: You still live at home. Do you live with either parent? Both? You think your mother brought you into this world to be this guy? I wanted to avoid the maternal guilt trip (always gets me) but you really have to consider what kind of person your dad behaved like to get your mom in the first place. Now, I'm going to shut the fuck up about that, because your family is not my business and I don't want you to think I'm making a judgement call based on your parents or something. It's just an important question: Was I put on earth to do this?

What do you think feminists want dude? The most basic thing. They want to have their point of view heard. They have a platform to do that, and I'm inclined to agree that because of reticent turds like you a lot of them still live in shitty situations. A lot of people can't accept that it is rough for women in big chunks of the world, and getting all caught up in the internal feminist politics is just a death sentence for reasonable thought.

The real ones, not the adolescent retards that exist in your world, are damn fine people. Assertive women get my gears turning all day long because intelligence and self-advocacy is sexy as hell, especially when they have great stonking hips. Usually non assertive ones are gorgeous but a little naive (not saying dumb) or just fat as all hell. See, I'm not most feminized of people either. The important distinction to remember is that I don't hate women (I don't think I hate anyone any more. So much effort) I'm just enough of a general purpose asshole to say something shitty once in awhile because that's how I think things should be. I think it's fine to be angry, or grumpy, but to be hateful is just downright poisonous guy.

Now I'm going to get all preachy. Feel free to bail.

Before I started mindlessly insulting the things you like, I think I had a pretty good point Nep: Negativity breeds negativity. If you want to perceive and remain aware of some kind of cultural veil that hides the facts from me, do it, but are you happy? Do you not get that twinge of doubt that there's nothing wrong with admitting you've gone too far in your vitriol and that starting over with a more understanding nature might be just what the doctor ordered? I mean, if I'm suggesting it would be healthier and happier for you to do so and I end up wrong, well good for you for being correct in the first place, right?

Fortunately, I'm not wrong. There isn't a version of this discussion where you flipping out and calling women pigs is the checkmate move that's needed to end it.
What if you think this way because you're just trapped in this cycle of anger. Bigger than feminism, bigger than any amazing artichokes, what's actually wrong in your world that is breeding this malignant, nonstop hatred? Don't bother telling me, I'll make fun of you. But you start thinking less about what's wrong with things and more about what's wrong with you and you'll start seeing how you're just casting your negativity at things and having it bounce back at you. Anita Sarkesian doesn't give a fuck what you or a million other equally pissed-off misguided nerds think about how she makes her money, so why the hell do you care so much about her? There's no version of this where Anita or any of the other devils you've conjured up have anything to do with you in real life.

Anyway, that's enough preaching. I think Nepsotic is shaping up to be a bad person by engaging in this type of thinking and I did my best to explain why he shouldn't get caught up in such nonsense, but I'm not holding his hand into being a grownup either.

You are quite welcome. The same goes for Varrok, he's possibly the funniest poster on OWF, oftentimes accidentally.

And the same goes for you Nep. I figure you don't give a shit what I think, but I like you as much as ever. I just wish you were less extreme and didn't call anyone a pig.

You're not a pig, Mac <3

I never called women pigs, it's insane that you're suggesting I did. Slimy tactics used by slimy people.
I called specific feminists piglets, because they go searching for other people having fun and then they eat it and move onto the next thing. You genuinely think I hate women? Of course, that's the natural progression, isn't it? Anti-feminist=misogynist.

It's like people can't have discussions about this stuff because people start throwing around buzzwords like "sexist" and "racist" to silence the opposing view. That's exactly what you're doing right now.

I actively try to debate feminists, to talk to them. I like engaging in discussions with them because part of me hopes that they will open my mind up to the bigger picture. They don't because there isn't one. They don't debate, they don't even attempt, they just scream "misogynist!" and move on. It's tiresome.

You think I'm shaping up to be a bad person because I have opinions different from yours? And you call me narrow-minded?
You know something? I'm not sexist, I'm not racist. I think I'm as neutral as it gets. To the left of me there's people crying because comedians aren't coddling them with trigger warnings, and to the right there's people talking about how Obama is a secret Muslim and how he wants to get his army of blacks to take away er gerns.

You honestly, truly don't know me, Mac. I think the fact that you're trying to psychoanalyze me based on a few forum posts says more about you. Did you notice how your entire last post was calling me out as a woman hating nerd? Feminists aren't woman, and I don't even hate feminists. The bad ones. I pity them because they've got themselves in a situation where they cannot win. They can never win because that would mean being 100% projected all the time, yet never protected and standing strong. There's so much detail I could go into about this but I'm fucking tired and I want to go to bed.

I'm at the same point. I'm fucking exhausted.
buuut
I dated one. I get it. I don't claim to know you any better than how I see you through these posts. AntiFeminism isn't an ideology, it's neo-contrarian trash made for homeschooled, self-loathing bumpkins who didn't spend enough time around other vaginas. There are better ways to spend your time, trust me. If you're at a point as an antifem where you're sick of feminists to the point where you have to compare them to piglets, they're at a point where they feel genuinely victimized because that identity is all they have (because they're more than likely between the ages of 14-21). Feminism serves a purpose. Antifeminism serves to deny the need for that purpose. I'll always vote for the former. You're still getting mad about these groups that operate solely on the internet and only have emotional agency on you if you let them.

Good grief, good lord, good night.

Except they don't, it's seeping into real life. Have you seen the state of university and college campuses?

OK I read like three posts on this thread (since my own post ofc) and

http://i.imgur.com/Et356rX.gif

Also why is Nep literally defending The Amazing Atheist? I mean, I don't like Anita Sarkeesian either but dude, are you 14?

Probably because I enjoy his content and most of the criticism directed at him is false?
Are you so ignorant that you can't comprehend the fact that people have different tastes to your own?


Hang on a second... I remember you. You're Frustrated Assassin.

I have! I'm going to College now and let me just tell you: I was just as worried about this shit as you were. I was positive it would be something that I'd have to deal with, and I went balls-out into an elective Sociology course just to grab the bull by the horns. What I've been confronted with is...not the ideology I see on the internet. This textbook is only 2 years old, and so far it's mainly dealt with different class systems in different parts of the world and how subjective a culture's perception of altruism is. I'm still waiting for the chapter on castrating all males but I just don't think it's going to come up this term.

On behalf of Canadians in general the massive influx of College-aged SJW's is basically the fault of Canadian-born Toronto-based feminists. That's not an exaggeration, University of Toronto is almost always the place being filmed when you see crazy bullshit (Big Red, for example) but then you have Mattress girl, and people claiming 'Air Conditioning is Sexist'. These are bad, ignorant people (Mattress girl is an especially terrible human being) but it's so easy to just zoom in on the crazies when, in my experience, feminism is something that women subscribe to feel empowered because they feel like they lack power. A great example of a Male who uses the same excuse 'ideology to translate hatred and resentment' is brother Dean, a gigantic faggot who goes to protest Pride rallies 'for the sake of free speech'. Dean and Mattress Gal are what you get when people become so invested in this shit on the internet they need to force it on reality to makes themselves feel better. They're both fucking disgusting people.

If they refuse to believe the wage gap isn't a consequence of Men being unable to get pregnant, too bad for them, they're idiots. But not all feminists are like that, and in my experience the ones who are are unready to move past some of the resentment that can tag along with Feminism are...well, around our age. They're adults, maybe, but they aren't mature'. They politicize these things into something they aren't. Unfortunately you're going to be seeing the younger generation subscribing to this ignorant version of things more and more until we start cracking down on the general divisiveness people occupy themselves with.
It's not a hopeless situation at all though, it's just a ripple effect of what was relevant to the previous generation. Give it a few more years and you'll see everyone moderating themselves a little better, you'll see reason trickling down over extremism because society can't function with a bunch of anomie genderfluid neckbeards running the show.


Now, Sarkesian. She's a con artist. I don't think whether she plays videogames is relevant or not, because she was bankrolled long before anyone considered that mattered. She's a mouthpiece for the same half-baked purposes as I think The Amazing Atheist is: She is placing her resentments and presumptions into a field that has a burgeoning interest for young people so she has something to translate those thoughts through. I think she's a dishonest person, but I have to give her props for playing people so well and getting paid while she did it. I don't think 'what video games are actually about' matters, but I do think that regardless of whether she's a good person or not, the basic idea of 'let's talk about how we're depicting men and women in content directed at young people' is something people should be talking about.

Bullshit like that extremely basic "Super Mario is misogynistic" line is to get people who don't know shit about gaming OR feminism to pay attention to her. Once again, I've seen and read more than enough to understand that she is not an honest or particularly perceptive human being, but her narrow-minded ideas raise a good point; why not examine gaming as a whole and start communicating something more whole and meaningful if we're bogging them down with ideology at all? It's a can you have your cake and eat it too situation where either games are just games or they're an artistic platform to communicate ideas on, and we need to consider whether we want to start thinking harder about those ideas or just play some fucking Halo.

That's the funny thing about College, I think it's really hard to press your resentments forward when you're so busy with classes, so they find an outlet online. Go to school, have fun, come home tired, shitpost. Rinse and repeat. Whether they are genuinely resentful is irrelevant because, as we've seen, our perception of someone can be shaped very precisely by not just what their argument is, but how they present it.

Now, I don't think you hate women. I get carried away and I think trying to avoid just posting a bunch of insults I got hung up on something else. I hope this doesn't sound too patronizing but man to man, these people who are so outrageous and outspoken on the internet don't really seem to have the passion to bring it to school with them, if they actually believe it at all, which is kind of ironic to me. Like, not to backtrack too hard but it isn't very 'Feminist' (in the independent and assertive connotations that the word is supposed to carry to me) to just whine on the internet about how much of a plague penises are but not follow up, and that same reticence to express oneself outside of the internet goes both ways, Fems and AntiFems alike. I think that your dealings have been with some pretty ignorant people, and the best way to eliminate that is to make these interactions face-to-face, or purge this furstrating pursuit entirely and just start reading published text on the subject going back the last 50 years or so.

Understand that Feminism validates a lot of basic injustices that women start to see as they grow up. It obfuscates gender roles, and in this day and age that's a good thing, so long as it isn't ignoring that there was a point where we were not culturally or technologically prepared to be egalitarian, but the last century or so has shown that we're at that point and need to put it to use.

So, College is really a place for people to develop themselves and grow up out of the things they bring to the school. There are these big posters in the men's washrooms that say "NO MEANS NO!" and a guy like me looks at that and says 'Yeah, no shit sherlock' but there are people who actually need that reminder, "don't be a violent, greedy piece of shit." Feminism exists for a reason, specifically because we used to unironically blame women for getting raped because they weren't dressed like a fucking quaker. That's the reality, the majority of outrage comes from the past perceptions of things bleeding forward into the present state. Muslims/The religious are more moderate and able to blend into secular society, Feminism has a place to examine gender roles and give genuinely idealistic and important women a place to start, it's really not a bad thing, I just think you've been stuck at a point where all you see are the adolescent fucktards that corrupt each and every discussion, and they validate your negative perceptions of feminism so it's just a cycle of irritation and massive, sprawling shitposts.

Now, back to The Amazing Atheist.
He expresses ignorance. 'Most Muslims are radical' is an ignorant statement. 'The scumfuck Muhammad' completely ignores the historical context and culture that lead up to the world Muhammad was born into.
Being naive enough to let a picture like the one I'm alluding to get online says something about his character, not that it makes him a pervert or a bad guy, but a careless person. That's enough for me to think he doesn't care enough about what he says to actually research it, and that is further evidenced when he talks shit about a guy like Reza Aslan as if he's some kind of America-hating superterrorist, when Aslan is an extremely moderate academic. Those facts are enough for me to connect the dots and have every reason to believe TAA doesn't know what he's talking about. He knows of what he is talking about, but he doesn't actually appreciate or comprehend the reality of much of what he attempts to discuss. That's my issue with TAA: He runs his mouth about things that he hasn't actually researched, it's just the same cycle of 'check wikipedia for what validates what I have to say' that most bloggers get away with. I think he is willfully ignorant because if he wasn't he couldn't pretend to be so outraged at religion in general because all the religious have done to him is lampoon him for being such an arrogant joke.

As far as I know, you live in the UK which is both at more risk of radical Islam than Canada and has denser populations. That's the reality, there are some real cancerous fuckers in religion looking to stir up trouble. It's happening in the states right now: Men are taking advantage of destabilization and riot to arm themselves and play soldier. It's something everyone has to crack down on, not stopping the Feminists or halting the progress of Islam, but being careful enough to take everything in moderation and try to expose the immoderate as detrimental to society as a whole.

First off, I just want to say that TAA never at any point said 'Most Muslims are radical'. I think that's a misunderstanding on your part and your attitude towards him now makes far more sense to me, but honestly, he doesn't think that. I wouldn't follow someone who's so ignorant. He actually has a very decent set of morals which I've noticed by watching their podcast.
Your point about the times Muhammad lived in is a common one, and it's true, but so what? Are you arguing that someone like that was not scum by today's standards? By the way, when 1.6 billion people follow such a man, he does have to be judged by today's standards. Calling Muhammad a scumfuck isn't really an ignorant statement, it's more the opposite. Saying "Muhammad was a stand-up guy!" is far more ignorant.

I wouldn't say it's a careless statement either, it's pretty clear he wants to get people fired up and be provocative, probably for views, but it's also a trademark of the character (because it is a character).

Anyway, it seems we pretty much agree on feminism, then. The difference is I don't accept the "not all feminists" argument. Feminism does not have a leader, anybody can call themselves one whilst communicating bad ideas and unfortunately that's all I see. And no, that isn't an exaggeration. As I've said before, Christina H. Sommers is a feminist whom I respect and look up to, because she doesn't shy away from the label yet her ideas are logical and her arguments rational.
Now, I don't think an ideology that says "bhurkas are empowering" but "bikinis are triggering the male gaze" should have lasted as long as it has. And I don't care what you say, that's the point that third wave feminism makes. It's fine if women want to feel empowered, (I don't know why they would considering they have all the same rights as men, but they totally have the right) but third wave feminism is all about changing things and censoring things. It's about coddling and it's about being a victim. Feminists are moaning about Page 3 or their representation in videogames while women in other countries face genuine oppression.

I'd make the argument that women have more privileges in first world countries, and I can back that up and talk about it for a while if you want to get into that.