Meanwhile the rest of us are fed up with paranoid schizophrenics like yourself who believe women are being persecuted everywhere. There are countries where women are not treated as equals and I think most first world guys are against that. These would be the same guys you are mostly addressing right now.

Based on my own observations attractive women are treated better than most people in general. They are "more equal". There are plenty of studies to demonstrate this. Ugly women, like ugly men, are routinely discriminated against OTOH by nearly everyone. But it isn't due to their sex. It is due to their unattractiveness. Unattractive males are also treated badly and paid less.

Are you seriously trying to argue the merit of a film based on ticket sales? Or about which hole some character in the film likes to fuck? How about artistic merit? Creativity without regard for how many widgets you get to buy after it is released.

How about art having some fucking integrity for a change instead of basing content on opinion polls? Not every film even needs to have sex in it at all. Hence neatly sidestepping the whole issue of forcing guys to watch other guys sucking on big fat cock because it is better for them.

Actually I think you are the one who misunderstands the problem. There is no real problem. Bioware is well known as the LGBT developer. That's what they do now. They cater to the lesbian audience. It's basically lesbian romance fiction with some boring combat thrown in. This article is just marketing for them. Trying to drum up business by claiming that all other developers should be exactly like them and only hire lesbian writers to write about lesbian characters for a mostly lesbian audience.

I don't see anything wrong with Bioware catering exclusively to one particular sexual orientation and attempting to appeal exclusively to those lesbians of lesser intelligence who think Harlequin Romances are great works of fiction. But I do see something wrong with them trying to claim that everyone else should be doing the same and that if they choose not to then they must be racist sexist bigots. Bioware is arguing in favor of self-censorship and their own form of sexism. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination. IMO censorship is still wrong even when it is self-censorship or corporate profit motivated censorship.

What community? People who think Biowhore is a bunch of psuedo-PC racist fucks themselves discriminating against heterosexuals and sucking on EA corporate cock? Oh sorry slurping on corporate cunt I guess since Bioware is mainly a bunch of carpet munching dykes whose badly written Harlequin Romance-esque characters really only appeal to other Lesbians and perhaps anyone with a sufficiently low IQ to think the bad writing is clever and repetitive popamole gameplay is the height of fun.

Because Bioware has chosen to discriminate against the majority instead of the minority does not make them right. It's discrimination itself that is the problem. A writer should have the creative freedom to choose whatever protagonist he/she wants based solely on creative reasons, not based on making sure that every sexual orientation, race, religion, and philosophical viewpoint is evenly represented. Lesbian authors who only write about lesbian characters are every bit as 'bad' as heterosexual writers who only write about heterosexual characters.

Of course neither of the writers who only write about characters of their own sexual orientation are bad. It's the people encouraging discrimination who are the enemy of creativity everywhere and the ones who are wrong. Writing in both novels and video games should be based on what the author thinks makes for an interesting character and an interesting story. Period. As someone who dabbles in a bit of writing myself the aggressiveness of the LGBT community would make me want to give them all a wide birth and not include any non-heterosexuals in my fiction. Period. There's no real reason to. No pressing need. Plenty of good stories to tell that don't involve worrying about sexual orientation.

I think what he's saying is that what is called 'homophobia' is not just a misnomer but an intentionally dishonest one. Homosexuals aren't widely feared. It's not that people are afraid of getting bitch slapped by roving bands of girlymen. People who hate jews are known as anti-semites. That is an accurate label because it is about hatred and a desire to oppress or hurt/destroy jews. They aren't called jewphobes because fear isn't the problem.

People who hate people of African ancestry do not usually just hate them. They also feel contempt and often fear as well. Our terms are really overly simplistic. Nevertheless the term 'homophobic' is unusually unfortunate and its dishonesty is intentional IMO.

I disagree. Intent in and of itself should never be against the law. I could say, "Please everyone go out and download games and films and music and commit as much copyright infringement as possible." Maybe some people will be persuaded to do just that, but I have no direct control over such people. They are responsible for their own actions and decisions.

I could also tell people to consume illegal drugs and tell them on what street corner they can find some. None of that should be illegal. It's all communication, all speech. The mere imparting of information should never be against the law.

It is never in a civilization's best interest to prohibit the free flow of information. Although it may be in some individual's financial interest to do so. It is precisely for the benefit of a few rich and greedy people that such laws are created in the first place.

So there was a discrepancy between prediction and observation for the AGW model. Why haven't we heard about that before? Only now that the observations are consistent with theory do we find out about it. Yet more evidence that climate scientists are not real scientists.

Citation?

Citation needed.

Because MS wants to sell more copies of their newer even crappier OSes. Bashing their older OSes and paying crackers to find exploits that only run in those older OSes is supposed to increase shareholder value. I bet MS has a whole bunch of XP specific exploits that they are just waiting to release as it gets closer to the XP cutoff date.

Because instead of improving their OSes Microsoft makes each version worse than the previous one. So four versions "behind" with Microsoft can translate to four versions ahead when compared to Linux or OS X. If you want Microsoft to actually improve their OS you have to go back in time so that you can rewind past all of the dumbfuckery they've done since to make things worse.

I don't know where Microsoft sees itself heading in the next decade, but if it's anything like the direction they've chosen with their post-XP OSes so far I want no part of it.

There are also games that don't play nice with Windows 7. Now that Intel and possibly Nvidia and AMD have stopped writing XP drivers I have to start maintaining a Legacy Box in order to run XP natively. Such a PITA, but abandoning XP is just not an option for me yet.

I don't believe in the direction that Ballmer has taken with their post-XP operating systems. Since I just did a computer upgrade and my new motherboard doesn't have XP drivers I am planning to mainly use Windows Embedded Standard 7 for my Windows OS, but when it comes to Windows I think it will be a long time before Microsoft pulls its head out of its ass and again writes a decent OS.

So I'd like to use Linux as much as possible. Only using Windows for games and Windows only applications that don't have a good equivalent in Linux. As Microsoft OSes just get worse and worse I think I may put some effort into a Hackintosh as well. It would be nice if what happened to Microsoft in the world of Tablets happens with desktops as well. They so do not deserve their market share.

How much does MS pay you for posts like this? Windows 7 is a shit OS compared to Linux and OS X and Windows 8 is a tablet OS. Windows 7 isn't all that bad, but it's still a bloated mess with a horrible UI. The UI of XP is superior to 7 IMO. Windows Embedded Standard 7 is actually not too bad though. Still an example of unoptimized, inefficient, sloppy coding and bloated individual components, but the fact that it's componentized at all makes it a lot less awful.

Nevertheless Microsoft is an awful software compony that deserves to die. They are the last people who could ever design a good OS. In fact they really can't afford to make an OS too good, because then they can't upsell when Windows 2014 is released. With Microsoft it's all about getting people to dump their old OSes and buy new ones. They're still hurting from the fact that XP was so user friendly and content/feature focused rather than marketing focused. Making sure that people think their old OS is bad is at least as important for sales as selling people on the idea of a new OS that does all the same things, but in a new way.

A TSA officer is not a 'random' person. And I think most of them do deserve it. Just my opinion of course.

He shot a TSA officer. I think many people would like to high five him. Mr. Jefferson will have to get in line.