(That's the joke...)
Maybe it was just poorly written, but it doesn't seem like she has any specific complaints.
Then there was the odd bit about how she trusts Google, so it's okay for them to collect vast amounts of information about her.
Why is this here?
It's Medium.com spam.
This needs to stop.
You might really enjoy Somolia.
Saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side.
Chrome doesn't rely on a plugin for flash, it has a player built-in. I seriously doubt they'd have killed NPAPI support otherwise.
Congratulations! In your rush to repeat your favorite MRA line, you've completely missed the point!
A rather selective quote.
Did you know that you can quote someone exactly and make it look like they've said something completely different?
She answered not a single negative comment,
That's very obviously not true.
We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.
I'd disagree. There are differences there that can hide rather well. The most important, of course, is credibility.
Let's say I make the following threat, directed toward you: "I'm going to murder you! Murder you to death! I'll kill you with murder!"
You, presumably, will be unaffected. We don't know each other, or anything about one another. You have no reason to believe I have the ability to make good on my promise. I simply can't make a threatening threat that will threaten you in the slightest.
Now, image we're high school classmates. You say to me, over facebook, "After school tomorrow, I'm going to pound you until you piss blood".
That's a far more credible threat, as I know you have the knowledge and opportunity necessary to actualize it.
Now imagine that you're the target of a large movement filled with very angry people and you receive a number of credible threats...
There are a number of ways to interpret the "if you're a woman" clause.
You found the one way to interpret it that fits your preconceptions, and lets you attack someone who thinks differently than you do about various social issues.
Attacking her personally and whatever imaginary beliefs you've attributed to her isn't going to convince anyone to see your side of the issues. Why? Because you're clearly avoiding the real issues. I can only assume it's because you have nothing to say. Is it because you don't think there's a problem because you're not personally affected? Do you know there's a problem, but benefit from the status quo and want to maintain it?
Is it denial? Puerile self-interest? Delusion? Vengeance? What motivates you here? Why not just address the issues directly? Why bother with personal attacks? Why beat the stuffing out of those strawmen? Why imagine shadowing PC Media villains out to
GG has merit? I thought that anyone with something reasonable to say abandoned that moniker a long time ago. The remainder being just a noisy bunch of bottom feeders pretending it's all about ethics in journalism while spending all their time ranting about feminism and harassing women online..
If you actually think there's a diamond at the bottom of that cesspool, please, pull it out and show us. Then get it as far away from that mess as possible. Leave it in that filth and no one will ever see it.
The internet! Where EVERYONE actually gets the 'equality' they all claimed they wanted!
Ummm... No. See, as you point out, women can't express themselves freely because, by virtue of being a women, they will be treated unequally the instant their gender is known. That is not the case for men, who are free to reveal their gender as people tend to assume that anonymous users are men. You insist that anyone who's not a straight white male must hide some aspect of themselves to avoid unequal treatment. That's not equality, it's oppression.
This isn't complicated.
There is a massive difference in degree here.
Consider this: Alice and Bob get in to an argument. Things get heated, and Alice calls Bob a jerk. Bob then beats her severely. Alice, after regaining consciousness, files a police report.
Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect
What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.
If you're neutral in the case of Alice and Bob, you are indeed part of the problem. Sure, Alice was wrong to call Bob a jerk, but that is not in any way equivalent to the severe beating Alice received. Insisting that all wrongs are somehow equally egregious, and using that to justify taking a neutral position is absurd.
That's the sort of thing you see a lot from hard line feminism
An interesting perspective. I've never seen a feminist, hard-line or not, espouse such a thing. That argument seems to exist exclusively withing groups like GG and AVFM, who apparently have inside information in to the secret feminist cabal that's out to destroy the world.
Sorry about that last bit. I just can't take you conspiracy nuts seriously. Particularly when you spend so much time and energy arguing against your own imagination.