Does anyone really think that the petition to get a PG-13 cut of Deadpool was anything more than marketing Deadpool as an R-rated movie, and getting ahead of the outrage that would ensue if a parent took the kid to see it and the kid saw all the naughty and nasty things going on in it?

I'm curious...what are the specifications for braille dice?

You laugh. But I met this guy several years ago.

http://bioengineering.rice.edu...

He helped me build my 3D printer.

First dialog box asks if you're over 18.

Second one asks if you're SURE you're 18.

Depends. Are you a hacker?

...nothing of value was lost.

Super Bowl's over. Guess it's time to shift them goalposts.

This may be one of the most reasonable comments in the thread.

May I also suggest that if one line of questioning becomes inappropriate, that it opens the door for others to become suspiciously "inappropriate" as well.

This assumes that a.) most of them act that way, b.) women can't handle themselves, c.) abuses are unique to the software industry and d.) the nice men in the business suits with perfectly professional behavior in front of the board don't come up with passive-aggressive ways to behave badly.

Jesus, it's like there's only black-and-white with you guys.

Okay, fine. Here's a hypothetical situation for you.

Last week, a coworker openly insulted me in a meeting last week. No consequence will befall said coworker for reasons that aren't relevant.

I go home and see his face on my 80-lb punching bag. I spend an hour beating on my punching bag because I'm frustrated.

Do you think that me using my punching bag for an avatar of a real person is going to make me more abusive to other people? Or do you think that maybe it channels that energy into doing something constructive because the limited amount of energy I had to spend on the matter has been expended on the punching bag?

Now, one could argue I have anger issues. One could also say that if I took to my punching bag at 5:00 pm when the insult I took was at 9:30 am and didn't punch (or in any way abuse) ANYONE during the day means that if I DID have anger issues, that's I'm perfectly able to control it and not abuse people.

So, then, what's the difference? Because it's sexual and not violent that the people who think in sexual terms are likely to do the opposite than my strategy for dealing with my frustrations? Or because sexuality is so sacred that it can't be misused with inanimate objects for fear of misinterpreting it in the "real world"? Or because people dwell on a situation so much that once they expend their energy on it once, they unhealthily obsess about it by re-creating the situation where any person will lie down and take it? And even worse, that these people are the norm?

I'd say yours is the bugaboo with sexuality. At least moreso than those people who you would claim to "abuse" Cortana.

The sad part is that what you're saying is pretty much true of anything.

If someone wants to do a thing given a set of conditions, they generally find a way to accomplish that thing within the set of conditions given.

The correct response isn't to create more rules or limitations, seeing as how it's proven that if given the ingenuity of people who either want something enough, or want to piss off someone enough, people can accomplish almost anything, but to embrace the ingenuity as it arises and find out how to channel it so it stops being a distraction.

Depends on how valuable you are, and, if you're a high-level muckety-muck that feels inconvenienced by security regulations, well, you might just forego going secure because it's too much trouble (you think Hillary Clinton is the only high-level muckety-muck that's skirted security regulations for reasons that suited them?).

One could make a case for Roosh V being a misogynist (and this coming from someone who takes him at his word that the piece he wrote about legalizing rape was supposed to be satire. It's wasn't good satire, but unless there are women coming forward to accuse him of rape, I see no reason to say he's guilty of anything but exercising his right to free speech, and I'm compelled to defend especially the ugliest of free speech on principle), but I'd like solid evidence of Thunderf00t being a misogynist and/or "hate-filled" because he happens to not agree with Anita Sarkeesian and Atheism+.

If being critical is your sole criteria for that, then every single person on this board is guilty of hate-speech.

Perhaps not straight-forward questions in a vacuum the way tests do, but the things that you learn DO get used (or else what's the point of that fancy-schmantzy piece of paper?), and you need to be able to apply them.

And that's what the reason behind a test is: demonstrating the ability to absorb an idea and clearly repeat it back as if you LEARNED it.

I don't normally engage in use of the term "SJW" as I hate labeling people, but I like your definition.