A you trying to make me a feminist?Follow

You're the one who is focused on defending her based purely on her reproductive organs.

No, you are just a douchbag with a small *****... (wow, its true, anyone can call people names on the internet)

By the way, does this make ME a misogynist?

It makes you miss something. Figuring out what is the fun part.

God, this thread is the turd that just keeps on shitting.

This filter is something else.

Edited, Oct 15th 2014 11:26am by Kavekkk

Forgot your password again?

It's like this forum is staffed by a collection of unspeakable, drooling retards.

And like five people who are fine. I'm not going to say their names, though, because this way lots of people I actually hate will think they're on it and back me up about everyone else sucking industrial hose-cock. I, uh, hope.



You know it. I actually prefer this account, though. Makes me feel all young.

Edited, Oct 15th 2014 11:31am by Kavekkk

Gamersgate (the store) was down for the last three or four days from a series of DDOS attacks. Supposedly (word on the street) resulting from people who can't tell "Gamersgate" from "Gamergate".

I think it being a Ron Gilbert game alone makes it worth a $15 risk, but I'm a huge fan of the Monkey Island games.

The only way to focus less on someone's reproductive organs is to make the assumption that they aren't a large factor, and that fundamentally removes your ability to see the whole truth.

So no, you aren't. I know you think you are, but you aren't. And the reason you think you are is because you've been actively trained by our culture to accept tenants and modes of thought that are bluntly misogynistic.

Given that we have a societal standard to doubt female victims as potential liars in all cases of violence against women in our society, when data shows that it's not the problem the average person thinks it is. And, more importantly, that this is a threat of violence against a women and women, specifically for being women, I think it's really fair to say that ovaries should probably be considered in the reasoning.


The blunt truth here is that your inference is bad. It's really, really poor. Your taking a massive intuitive leap. Yes, Sarkeesian has received death threats before. But we know next to nothing about what kinds of threats she's received, when she's received them, how they sent them, to who, etc.

These are all factors. You're using a circular argument; your equating threats she's received and then using your assumption that they should be equal to attack her for not treating this one as equal.

If you want to make an argument, make the argument that this threat is different, and then move to demonstrate why her reaction isn't appropriate.

But just relying on a past precedent of death threats, in general, makes for a pathetically weak inference.

On Tumblr? Yes. In big people land? No. This isn't the police's attitude at all.

So, sure, if you want to conduct a media smear campaign against someone, rape's not a bad choice. Kiddie rape is obviously better, but hey, a smear's a smear. This doesn't mean most rape victims get a receptive audience from the police, or that they are largely successful in having their case prosecuted. Their friends and family may or may not be supportive, really depends.

In Big Person Media Land and Big Person Public Perception Land it is.

Big Person Land is a big place. You should travel more

As for the Utah claims here, since the threats were sent directly to the school I really see no reason to doubt that they were made (however realistic they were). Assuming otherwise means believing not only that Sarkeesian sends out false threats but also that she decided this time that instead of sending threats to herself she would threaten a university with a mass shooting.

Is that what we're calling broads now?

I'm not convinced on the point but I really don't want to drag out five extra pages arguing about it either so I'll concede the point.