I'm not surprised, it looks to be running at one mega flop!

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

Outside the singularity nuts, you don't often find people advocating for a video game afterlife.

Besides, your mom will probably just unplug your universe to run the vacuum cleaner in your basement "apartment", fulfilling the prophecy: The great Filter Queen will being an end to all existence.

Apparently, easy math is easier for some than for others. I always tell kids they can check a subtraction by reversing it with an addition. 1984 + 21 = 2005. Oops, something went wrong! If you do the problem again, you'll find your mistake. 2015 - 21 = 1994.

"So this dame comes up to me and asks about Python, right? So I show her my dick. What's the big deal? Now I gotta deal with some sexual harassment shit."

So ... it's the fault of the women that they don't find you attractive? They should appreciate any attention they receive from you because you believe them to be unattractive? That's surprisingly arrogant.

There seems to be a theme here. The less successful you are with women, the more likely you are to blame the media, feminism, women in general, or some other factor external to yourself. Have you considered that you're simply not a great catch? That you're less attractive than you believe yourself to be?

Except it doesn't matter.

If existence is meaningless, the only question left is suicide, said a zillion existentialists in their mid to late teens after reading The Outsider.

The question, then, is why so many of you survive.

Man, you've got some serious issues. Women don't exist to service you sexually. They have far more to contribute than just a warm and wet place to stuff your tally-whacker.

Try this: Shower regularly, lose the flab, dress like an adult, and treat women like people and you just might find you'll have more success when you interact with them.

No, no. Looking a bit pale is likely to save you.

Here's something fun: Can you actually believe that you don't have free will? I don't mean some silly statement like "I can't see how free will is possible", but actually observe yourself acting, free from the illusion? After all, with other illusions, you can "shake them off" an see them for what they are -- separating what is from what is apparent. If you can deny such a strong and ever-present aspect of your own experience, how does that affect your perception of yourself? Can you take pride in your accomplishments or feel shame for your failures? Does it have any meaning to you to know that the meat robot you happen to inhabit made, for example, a +5 post? It wouldn't be the meaningful, experiential, you, after all, that accomplished that, but some 'other' external to you. You were just along for the ride. Is that consequence a fact you recognize or do you hold on to the illusion?

There's a distinction they draw between sex and gender. You're having trouble understanding their position because you conflate the two.

That makes sense. NASA is faking the Pluto Truther movement to discredit anyone who points out the huge flaws in their fake Pluto photos.

Follow the money, sheeple!

For a few hundred bucks, I can help you with that.

So you agree with my contention that Slashdot is clearly not an "SJW echo chamber".

You could have done that without the paranoid conspiracy theory.

So ... you're saying that Reddit was okay when you could go there for racist discussions and kiddie porn, and it's ruined now that that content is no longer available?

Okay...

I pointed this out before. By your reasoning, we can claim "No True Scotsman" when presented with any operational definition.

You can disagree with the definition, but that's insufficient to dismiss its use under "No True Scotsman" banner.

Consider this terrible example. I have a club for fishermen. We have 1800 members and we're growing rapidly. None of the members have ever gone fishing. You come along and say "You can't possibly be fishermen. To be a fisherman requires that you go fishing."

Are you guilty of committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Of course not. You and I simply disagree over the definition of fishermen. Consequently, we categorize members of my club differently. If I were to say that your assertion is false as we are fishermen and we never fish, you could respond in one of two ways: You could reassert your objection e.g. "nonsense, if you don't fish, you aren't fishermen" or modify your definition to account for my counterexample e.g. "Well, you're not true fishermen as all true fishermen go fishing."

The fallacy is committed in the ad-hoc modification of some assertion, not in the assertion itself. Otherwise, it would apply to any and all definitions or other categorical criteria.

It's an error in reasoning that lets one hold some belief in face of evidence to the contrary. That's the entire point of the thing.

In this specific case, we have the implication that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap. We then have the claim that, by definition, feminists are egalitarians. You can disagree with that definition, but until the claimant modifies that definition to account for some counterexample, you cannot say that he has committed that fallacy. All he's done is offer a definition.