You're right. Problem is, only way to find that land mine is by stepping on it.Not that I have a wealth of options, but from my point of view, when you're dealing with a partner who sometimes says "No" to mean "Yes", FIND A DIFFERENT ONE. It's bound to go horribly wrong.
I prefer to think of it like a modifier. There are feminists, and then there are tumblr feminists.To be fair, categorizing all of Tumblr as SJWs is like saying that all of Reddit is MRAs.
Sounds like a plan.& B) People need to get off (...) more often.
Really? Even moreso than 4chan?Personally I think at this point the most toxic place in the internet is Twitter, but maybe that's just me.
Honestly? Yes. 4chan hides behind anonymity, but generally the subject of vitriol isn't ever present in the thread. It's like a bunch of teenagers talking about someone behind their back. Yeah it's bad, but Twitter is people directly interacting with the person/group, on a public media platform with limited to no anonymity, and on top of that forcing all their hate into 140 characters. Plus, how many public figures and people in various industries (games, movies, etc) have gotten in trouble for stupid things said in retaliation to Twitter remarks? More and more over the last few years.Really? Even moreso than 4chan?
For my part, I'm not really a fan of any kind of social network. I don't have a facebook account, nor twitter, Youtube put a gun to my head and made me get a google+ account but it's not linked to my real identity. I will cop to having a linkedin profile for my meatspace self, but that's only because if you work in the IT industry and you don't have a linkedin profile, potential employers think you're some kind of charlatan or mutant techno-unabomber.
Even the part where she claims Hitman games "invite and reward players for violently harming and killing women" when in fact the games penalize you for doing so?BTW, I went back to that video and his arguments saying that Sarkesian is a moron are uninformed on his part. What she said is backed up by psychological science going all the way back to the Milgram experiments. She's not the one full of shit, he is.
I'll admit, that was a small error she made in the overall argument. A large, overall argument that whatshisname doesn't address. Nor do most of her detractors, I've noticed. They're not addressing her overall arguments, but rather nitpicking things like using other YouTuber's videos (a fair, but minor critique) or that she "scammed" so many people out of their money when really, she wasn't asking for very much in the first place.Even the part where she claims Hitman games "invite and reward players for violently harming and killing women" when in fact the games penalize you for doing so?
Did she give back the extra or keep it?I'll admit, that was a small error she made in the overall argument. A large, overall argument that whatshisname doesn't address. Nor do most of her detractors, I've noticed. They're not addressing her overall arguments, but rather nitpicking things like using other YouTuber's videos (a fair, but minor critique) or that she "scammed" so many people out of their money when really, she wasn't asking for very much in the first place.
One error doesn't invalidate an entire argument, basing your entire argument off of false claims does.Well, I don't have the psychology background to speak to that. I do, however, have the video gaming background to know she's full of it.[DOUBLEPOST=1409007707,1409007674][/DOUBLEPOST]
Did she give back the extra or keep it?
I have no idea, and so what if she kept it? People freely donated to support her project. She was well within her right to keep it if she wished.Well, I don't have the psychology background to speak to that. I do, however, have the video gaming background to know she's full of it.[DOUBLEPOST=1409007707,1409007674][/DOUBLEPOST]
Did she give back the extra or keep it?
Spoiler - she kept it. It's pretty good money peddling victimhood.I have no idea, and so what if she kept it? People freely donated to support her project. She was well within her right to keep it if she wished.
GTA is pretty indifferent to all forms of violence, other than the possibility of too much/too visible violence raising your star level and making the police chase you. Yes, we've all heard the oft-quoted "you can pick up a prositute, have sex with her, and kill her to get your money back" but in GTA or Saints Row you can pretty much kill anyone you see to "get money" with the same police-response caveat.Also, to point out what she said about Hitman may not have been correct, but it is completely true of other games, such as GTA.
You're doing the same thing the espousers are doing - oversimplifying. No rarely means yes. No should always mean no. But as previously mentioned, it gets murky sometimes because relationship shit can get retarded.The video saying "no can mean yes" and "it's more about body language" is like saying anything can mean anything and gives free reign to justification being in the eye of the beholder.
If no means no, and the guy interprets it as yes = rape.
If no means yes, and the guy interprets it as no = miss out on sex. Oh no, the poor baby. I feel like the M in MRA should stand for Miserable crybaby, because "men" is supposed to be the adult form of "boys", and being a whiny bitch about not getting your way is not how adults should behave.
Oh, okay, so she was supposed to just ignore all the rape and death threats, attempted hacking of her account, and denial-of-service attacks? She wasn't playing a victim. She was a victim of all that harassment just because people didn't agree or want to hear what she had to say about women's portrayal in video games. Are you saying that all those juvenile, personal attacks on her were justified? Yeah, more people supported her maybe to spite the immature people who attacked her, but again, so what? She didn't ask for their support. She only received a large amount of news through various gaming sites because of all the ridiculous reactions people had. You could argue she received so much funding because of the publicity of the nonsense. If anything, those attackers helped support her campaign just by bringing more attention to it with their juvenile reactions.Spoiler - she kept it. It's pretty good money peddling victimhood.
I think Bowie put it better than I would:You're doing the same thing the espousers are doing - oversimplifying. No rarely means yes. No should always mean no. But as previously mentioned, it gets murky sometimes because relationship shit can get retarded.
If it came up for me, and then later the girl said "But I did want to", my response would be you need a better word, because without a previous discussion on our personal terminology, no means I'm not having sex.So, as a man, it's more prudent to assume that no actually always means no and not try to make excuses for not being able to keep it in your pants.
I think I've already replied to this post.So, as a man, it's more prudent to assume that no actually always means no and not try to make excuses for not being able to keep it in your pants.
She didn't start off being a victim, she started off peddling the idea of female victimhood. Yes, she then later got lots of reprehensible death threats and all the other things you say... but it sure parlayed into a decent profit for putting out 9 youtube videos in 2 years. Interesting question you raise with your last sentence, though - do you think she would have made as much money had she not held victim status?Oh, okay, so she was supposed to just ignore all the rape and death threats, attempted hacking of her account, and denial-of-service attacks? She wasn't playing a victim. She was a victim of all that harassment just because people didn't agree or want to hear what she had to say about women's portrayal in video games. Are you saying that all those juvenile, personal attacks on her were justified? Yeah, more people supported her maybe to spite the immature people who attacked her, but again, so what? She didn't ask for their support. She only received a large amount of news through various gaming sites because of all the ridiculous reactions people had. You could argue she received so much funding because of the publicity of the nonsense. If anything, those attackers helped support her campaign just by bringing more attention to it with their juvenile reactions.
Yes, yes, we're all Galahads on the internet, only tested in completely unambiguous situations with no nuance, confusion or pressure.I think Bowie put it better than I would:
If it came up for me, and then later the girl said "But I did want to", my response would be you need a better word, because without a previous discussion on our personal terminology, no means I'm not having sex.
Because THAT'S scientific, impartial, representative and not in the least bit pressured.Well, straw poll. How many people in this board have had sex with a woman who said no to sex, but later said that it was OK?
More importantly, women of the board, do you ever mean yes when you tell a man no?
Personally, I've been told no and said no to sex and all activity stopped then and there.
If you're being pressured into sex, then you're on the wronged side of things.Yes, yes, we're all Galahads on the internet, only tested in completely unambiguous situations with no nuance, confusion or pressure.
Oh, I agree, and it was also my clue to not have anything to do with her any more. But it doesn't change what I've replied to you for now the third time - that there is still a very, I won't call it "common" but certainly not "rare," tendency for some women to use "no" as a test to see how far you'll go and what you'll do. Be it to see if you "want it bad enough" or a test of your alpha maleness or whatever, or just to see if you'll chase when they run - there's some fucked up mind games going on out there.So, the ramification of you responding to a no as a no was that she got mad at you?
In my mind that's preferable to possible rape charges.
I would be very concerned about you if that didn't make you cranky.You get to tell me when I'm cranky about the intricacies of when no means yes when you've dealt with as many rapes as I have over the last 2 weeks.
Hollywood in general still hasn't learnt the difference between "harass and stalk" and "romantic gesture", so how do you expect the youth of our nations to learn it?"harass me if you want to date me."
Hollywood in general still hasn't learnt the difference between "harass and stalk" and "romantic gesture", so how do you expect the youth of our nations to learn it?
That was me, and yes. Her rule was a guy had to ask 3 times, get a hard rejection each time, and then ask again. Only then would she go on a date.Didn't someone on this board know of a girl in their college who wouldn't date a guy unless he asked her out 10 times, to make sure he really wanted to date her? I feel like that was here. So, you know, "harass me if you want to date me."