Just remember to:
1) Be handsome.
2) Be attractive.
3) Don't be unattractive.
Just remember to:
1) Be handsome.
2) Be attractive.
3) Don't be unattractive.
That is my complaint about online SJWs. They take a stand for social justice in the easiest way possible: a self-righteous tweet or blog post. Their primary goal is not actual social justice. It's shaming somebody else (the bigger the better. Major corporations are a great target) to puff themselves up.
The real fighters for social justice are on the ground. They're in the food banks, they're working with prisoners, they're running shelters. But that would be messy and take more time than tweeting and how would everybody know how courageous they are for taking a stand since the homeless don't want to be in their selfies?
I'm reminded of Matthew 6:2-3.
"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"
Online SJWs are worse than the Pharisees. At least the Pharisees were actually giving alms, even if they don't so loudly for their own aggrandizement. Online SJWs want all the adoration without the alms. All smoke and no fire.
When leaders of their religion say "go kill infidels" and then the followers of that religion go and kill infidels, that does imply causation.
We can also test a control group. Say, Methodists. Methodist leaders do not say "go kill infidels," and there have been no reported incidents of Methodists beheading anyone.
Correlation does not imply causation, but that doesn't mean causation doesn't exist. When the cause and effect are easy to define and testable, we can indeed say the Islamic religion is a cause of violence.
That would be fine in a free market, but the Masters of Universe rig the game by illegally colluding (as in this case) or buying immigration laws that allow them to import indentured servants (H1Bs). If everybody were playing fair, yeah we could have free market competition settle issues between capital and labor, but capital is rigging the game.
I though canadians were level headed people.
No, Canadians have floppy heads.
First, how can something be "very moderate?" How do you be more moderate than normal moderate?
And while there are some moderate flavors of Islam, there are also violent, fanatical versions that have a not insignificant number of followers.
Just saying, of all the religions in the world, and there are many, it seems like 99.9% of religious violence comes from Muslims. But no, no, they're "very moderate."
This is why I'm opposed to all those "learn to code" programs Zuck and friends keep hyping. The people at the top of the tech industry are not content with their billions. They want your thousands, too. There is a concerted effort under way to push your wages down, take that money and throw it onto their own already huge piles. No poaching deals. H1B visas. "STEM shortage," "coder shortage" bullshit. It's all part of the same offensive. It is class warfare and their class is winning.
I have an Xbox360 in my living room that I use for Netflix/Hulu/Plex (and video games). In my bedroom I have an Xbox One and an AppleTV. Sometimes I'll start watching on the 360 in the living room and then decide to finish watching in the bedroom on one of the other devices.
That won't work. Hollywood math that shit and you can make your "profits" anything you want.
There's also risk vs reward.
A guy wearing his jewelry in broad daylight in a good part of town going to a social event is not fucking stupid (well, except for questions of taste. Men and jewelry...), and if he gets mugged we should feel sorry for him. But if he's wearing his jewelry for no good reason in a shitty part of town, well...that's kind of stupid.
Same thing with the lady in the miniskirt. If she's going out with friends to a party or a club with a lot of people in a safe area and she wants to look good? Great, please do! I'd much rather look at her in that than a parka. But if she's walking through the ghetto alone at night for no good reason, well, that's pretty stupid.
As for the celebrities, I think it really sucks what happened to them. They should have been a little more careful, but it's not like they were indiscriminately mass emailing them around. For what it's worth, Ms. Lawrence, if you're reading this (just like all the other hot young women who read Slashdot), I didn't look at your pictures or any of the other girls. I don't want to look at pictures of somebody who doesn't want me looking at their pictures.
There's an awful lot of people who call themselves "Christian" but don't go to church or crack open a bible.
This study looked at "regular churchgoers." The one you're talking about was self-identified "Christians." These are almost certainly not the same sample set.
The answer is not some PSA talking about feelings and awareness. That is useless clueless bullshit. If you want to have a positive influence on this situation, then you need to get people that are reacting badly to trolls to react in a more effective manner.
I completely agree. We don't need our fucking awareness raised. 99.999% of us know it's wrong to threaten to rape somebody and call the police or their boss or whatever. When the vast majority of us who didn't do a damn thing wrong now get lumped in with the actual perpetrator and then lectured to, it has the opposite effect. I am now less likely to be concerned with the plight of [insert victim group] because they're accusing me of having all sorts of attitudes I don't have.
And I bet the trolls love it. Look at gamergame (I hate typing that). One deranged lunatic makes some not particularly credible threats against a woman who completely overreacts to what was purely online harassment at that point, goes full social justice warrior and starts attacking the entirety of "men who play video games" for the actions of one asshole. Those people get offended at being generalized as some kind of subhumans chafe and attack back, and the troll sits there gleefully watching thousands of people scream at each other for some tiny little words he wrote on twitter. At no point is the actual perpetrator punished. He is rewarded with a great show. And now people are more likely to dismiss harassment of women, because their experience has been this Sarkessian woman overacting to something and making ridiculous accusations against a bunch of people who didn't do anything.
I agree with you. This is not trolling. Trolling is a art.
I used to troll slashdot under another account. It was great fun. I'd see a good target story and write a well-structure comment. The first paragraph would be something on topic and sensible. The second would introduce minor logical flaws, which in the third paragraph would explode into completely ridiculous conclusions that would incense slashdotters, like that the only way to ensure privacy is for the government to monitor all communications at all times or something. Then you sit back and watch moderators only read the first paragraph and mod you +5 insightful, and then people come along and actually read the post and get enraged and write 12 paragraphs about how wrong I am. Then it gets moderated down to +1 troll, then people realize it's funny and it winds up at +5 funny. It was good fun.
But sociopaths threatening and harassing people not just on the internet but spilling over into real life (phone calls, calling their boss, their customers, etc) is not trolling. It's...criminal. Online trolling can be ignored, but I think the only way to stop that kind of behavior is legal action.
You're talking about a very small subset of assholes. The "gamergate" (god I hate typing that) thing is about a few obnoxious assholes and some SJWs. It in no way represents the vast bulk of people who play video games. That's the problem. It takes just a few vicious sociopaths to ruin shit for everybody.
No, the choice of target is not necessarily related to gender. They choose a target based on any number of reasons, but it generally has something to do with their opinions or actions.
Once they've identified a target, they use whatever weakness they can perceive to inflict maximum psychological damage. For many women, that is rape threats.
They would target a man for the same opinions, actions, whatever, but they would use something he'd respond to, like threats against his family or his job.
The sexist language is just the weapon, not necessarily the cause.
"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI