Comment forever and ever? (Score 1) 382
Forever is a bold claim. What about after the apocalypse? What about Planet of the Apes?
Are we making the Java manuals out of IBM keyboards or something?
Forever is a bold claim. What about after the apocalypse? What about Planet of the Apes?
Are we making the Java manuals out of IBM keyboards or something?
Perhaps they've studied the SEC, and are now realising that a shakedown racket pays far better than justice?
waat?!
It's Starbuck!
Parent should be an article submission; it's time for the Slashdot community to consider what this attempt at polarisation will lead to.
yup
the arc of history is clear: progress is real. it wasn't long ago the idea of gay marriage rights or marijuana legalization seemed distant and impossible
bigots, sexists, racists: they may whine and bitch, or go full douchebag and do immoral things, but their fate is clear and certain: the dustbin of history. they are losing, and they will lose in the end
don't get me wrong, sexists, racists and such losers will always exist. it's just that they will no longer dominate the social, legal, and political status quo like they used to. the fact that they no longer do is, like the arrow of time, proof of the march of history and progress
you will always encounter sexists and racists. a moronic comment on slashdot. a throwaway comment by a loser coworker. a catcall or a tweet from who knows where that momentarily catches your eye
ignore them. they hold no power
such shitbags will always linger like a fungus in a dank basement, the socially malformed pathetics of any society. serious civilization has moved on without them, and will continue to make them more and more irrelevant
like cannibalism and slavery, things that also do still exist, and always will exist, in the dark cracks. but are now an exotic shocking fringe, and no longer dominate our societies
You okay there, buddy? Need a napkin to wipe away all that frothing at the mouth? A hug or two?
but MRAs have some valid points about discrimination against men in family law.
It would be so if only MRAs actually cared a fig about discrimination or violence against men.
If you follow the movement, you'll see it has a lot less to do with making anyone's life better and a lot to do with attacking women.
Ah yes, the classic "pay no attention to the rationality of the argument, I can assure you that somehow it's all about invisible oppression."
This appeal to emotion is something I've never understood. Does logic warp in the presence of such accusations? Do valid points become invalid if countered with claims of misogyny? Is 2 = 2 somehow not correct because the author was accused of being an MRA (and therefore bad by association)? How do you rationalise away the valid points about discrimination against men by claiming that arbitrary persons attack arbitrary women?
1. Return of Kings is not MRA. Return of Kings is anti-MRA. That's a pretty big difference.
2. It's not plural activists. It's *one* guy.
3. This is the first time ever I've seen someone use RottenTomatoes as a reference for movie quality? Why?
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.