So it's only ok when you do it, then? What a hypocritical joke. I have a better idea: just focus on providing the most reliable bandwidth on the network for your customers as possible and let them provide the content.

It is almost certain that such information would be abused by ideologues as well as those looking to maximize profit, both at the expense of liberty.

one other piece..

It takes a large state to build tyranny, whether its strings are pulled by a bunch of ideological loons, or by runaway corporate interests.

Actually, I bet it's a lot more bilateral than either configuration. The mutual scratching of the backs while they pretend to squabble for the proles.

Along with a diet of kale and cabbage and a glass of water for each meal, this would be the only politically correct configuration. Anything else would 'offend' some protected group, thus it must be incorrect. I'm sure with state mandated health care, they'll eventually try to enforce this 'standard' on everyone, for our own good of course. In typical leftist brokenness, suddenly "Diversity is disabled for this session."

The state and its now satellite insurance companies, who'd love to enforce it on the rest of us.

"and now lets see which of us can touch our toes! Right over from the hips, please, comrades!"
"anyone over 45 is perfectly capable of touching his toes!"

We already have. it's called metro and it sucks. I'd rather see environments suited to specific types of devices..

True, but that doesn't mean those paying aren't getting exactly what they asked for. Dumb corporate policies cost money.

Needs about 350 million edward snowdens. Time to vote these criminals out people! Democrats and republicans both.

Argumentum ad populum.

When her body, her right, her choice is no longer his responsibility, then we'll've actually made progress.

Then they aren't 'real companies', just 'companies'. bwahaha!

You gotta be careful though. What do you mean by 'social skills'? Some would say this means "you just need to know how to talk to women". Why doesn't this apply to women as well? The post itself mentions something about women having to 'talk nice' to men to be heard, and that it's oppressive. Sorry, but if it's good for the gander, then it's good for the goose.

Of course men don't get asked that. Most men don't care about such things. The fact women get asked is because they typically DO care about such things. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that humans are sexually dimorphic, each sex having different imperatives. Really, no one should be giving a shit about the carpet or drapes at work because they should be too busy working to notice.

The rest of your statement is stereotyping, which is something else that feminists claim is oppressive. Why do you think it's ok to do it to men, or in this case, male gamers?

These days, it's men who are being 'carefully socialized' to dance around feminist gynocentric expectations and value systems. I believe HR departments call it 'sensitivity training.' Since proof of guilt is rarely required, employment for men is now a mad dash in a mine field of passive aggressive barbs just waiting to trigger whenever a woman is pissed enough to throw the book at a man. we're told this is justified because men alone engage in this behavior en masse, and that women are (ironically) damsels in distress who have no say or part in their situations, nor are they capable of similar behavior. This crap flooded hollywood and tv in the 90s, and now we're getting the full deluge of the same propaganda in the gaming scene. What bullshit. Polygon loves it, though, as they post a lot of it. The fact they shut off comments for this article speaks volumes about its logical and probably factual integrity.

We don't give people respect who haven't earned it and/or have given us reason to take it from them. Derek smart anyone? People still give john romero shit for daikatana even though he was a big part of the success of doom. He's revered for the good he's done and demonized for his stillborn shitpiles. This is how it's supposed to work. We're not supposed to hold some people above reproach based on their sexual organs or their race or any other irrelevant attribute, as that is the very definition of privilege. This makes the whole article 180 degrees out from the truth. Growing a thicker skin IS the answer as it allows one to stop and look at criticism objectively instead of immediately flying into a tantrum and/or a flurry of passive aggressive countermaneuvers. It allows one to ignore the ad hominems and other fallacies from any communication, whether it's well written constructive criticism or vitriolic trolling, and extract any truth from it.

These days, we are seeing more and more extreme reactions for ever more mundane situations from a culture bred to be as intolerant of criticism as possible. Everything has to be positive. All the time. No 'negative nancies' or 'debbie downers' allowed. The fact this precludes talking about the truth of things more than 50% of the time is lost on these social engineers. All that matters to them are feelings and consensus; the facts and truth be damned.

The term 'safer' here is used in place of 'more amenable' to make the situation sound more dire than it is. The bottom line is, very very very few men are truly guilty of assaulting women. I believe the stats on college campuses nationwide is 53 in one year...53 out of millions of students on thousands of campuses. This is NOT an epidemic, and I'll bet it's more than the number of assaults by male game developers and staff. If you are assaulted, don't whine on the internet. Call the police. The reason most of these women don't is because they know their claims are bullshit. Otherwise, they should act like the adults they want to be treated as, taking warranted criticism for what it is, regardless of format, and discarding the rest.

and if he grabbed a man by the throat, what would've happened? what if she assaulted him? what then? The difference in responses would be astronomical. 'Real companies' just don't want lawsuits. The lawsuits come from badly written laws that give one side the upper hand by default, truth be damned, for the sake of votes. Those laws are sexist and should be stricken from the books. Real companies don't let the stakes get to the point where passive-aggressive social dynamics are causing employees to assault each other.