Considering who posted it, I would have personally went with the more obvious line of "That's DUMB, ..."

Joking aside, as I've stated in discussions on other social media:
Calling gamers names and telling them they are terrible doesn't work. Feminists picked the wrong group to attack. Gamers have been called childish for playing games in the 80s, satanists and basement dwellers for their hobby in the 90s, called serial killers and violent in the 2000s, and now are being told they are rapists, sexist, racist, misogynists, and obtuse shit-slingers.

Since I'm a hobbyist game developer and gamer I must be the beyond terrible, so I will just start passing out business cards that say my title is simply Satan or The Devil.

I spent half my life being told by Christians that I was "broken" and "brainwashed", that I was "a sinner". They finally shut up and now the Feminists want to tell me I'm brainwashed, broken, and a sinner (bigot, racist, sexist)? All because of some arbitrary thing I didn't choose from birth? (My gender and race?)

Please.

I'm completely done. I have no "white" shame. I have no group-affiliated shame at all. The people who are telling me I'm flawed never turn around and help me when I follow their rules. It's all about picking another group to crush, to elevate yourself. It's political-scale bullying.

And I'm immune now. They cried wolf my entire life and the wolf never came. I'm just me, and it feels freaking great to let go of the idea that you're a bad guy just because someone, somewhere gets offended.

Want to talk about sexism? Go ahead. Find someone who is actually sexist and tell them. Because I'm freaking awesome and I treat everyone with respect until they give me a reason not to. And I'm not guilty until proven innocent. I'm not racist/sexist/whatever until proven otherwise. And anyone who uses those words against me, I know they (ab)use them as weapons to get what they want and silence discussion, and they have nothing to do with reality or me at all.

Being called a racist should stop everyone in the room and say, "Where's your damn proof?" And if they cannot provide it, they should be thrown out of the room for so haphazardly insulting a fellow, unique, human being.

Screw the "tolerance" movement. We need an age of respect.

Obvious answer: show her a game that empowers women, like (a bit old but) Tomb Raider [EDIT: 'empowers' here meaning 'demonstrates that they can do awesome things'. I already regret using the word just because it's in their vernacular.]

And yes, that game sexualises her too, but who doesn't want to be sexualised? [EDIT: 'sexualise' in this case meaning 'her clothes allow you to judge whether you want to ask her on a date <3'.]

Well, things like sexual slavery, exploiting women for prostitution, and sex trafficking certainly exist and are not an invention of feminists. These are very real forms of "sexualization" and "objectification". There's also lots of women who don't enjoy equal rights in the world with real problems.

You do have a point there.

uhhh... no.
Feminism isn't about that at all. The whole thing started because women couldn't even vote. Although there are shitty "anti-men women", there are also shitty "anti-women men".

That post was just misogyny, bambams. Those things don't represent feminists.

Judging the "value" and even "usefulness" of other human beings makes me think you don't belong to the "we" in the next quote, but rather to the other side.

"Ban bossy", Anita Sarkeesian/Zoey Quinn going to UN Women demanding the internet be censored to not allow people to criticize them, man in Canada almost put in prison for disagreeing with a Feminist on Twitter, promoting good health by saying being obese is bad is considered "fat shaming", college feminists can't handle the real world and want colleges to baby them (which some colleges have caved to in way of safe spaces, because we have to worry about peoples feelings now [apparently]). Feminists at least are showing why the movement is no longer needed in the US as they are worried about feelings instead of women's rights. All the feminists complaints are 1st world problems while they ignore 3rd world women who still have no rights.

If they cared about equality, then where are the feminists fighting for women to get the same punishment for the same crime as men? Where are the feminists demanding women be forced to apply for the draft like men? Where are the feminists demanding more men be forced into the nursing field or other female dominated fields? Where are the feminists demanding men get better support during divorce and child custody proceedings?

Feminism was about equality in the past, but now it has become about female supremacy over men. According to feminism, everything wrong with the world is due to "toxic masculinity". If you point out that women have done violent crimes too (not to the extent of men) they claim those women have "internalized misogyny". During the HeForShe campaign feminists were outraged that Ms. Watson had dared to imply women needed the help of men. Feminists claim men can't be feminists (hell a meme spawned out of it). Feminists want men to do everything for them while claiming they don't need men. "Boys should be taught not to rape", movies/games/comics/music make men sexist, they even had a curriculum made to make boys view games with sexy women as bad.

30 years now of feminists being anti-male and people still blindly say "feminism is about equality".

It's my observation that there's a reason that homosexuals or bi-sexuals find the same sex attractive. You'll find that lesbians tend to be more masculine than most women. That's not to say that they can't also be feminine, but on the spectrum of masculine and feminine they'll tend to be closer to the masculine side than the average woman. This is why I refer to them as a "grey area" gender. They aren't your typical woman. Their brains are wired differently and they can relate to males in some ways better than females.

Sorry, that wasn't a very clear sentence and I'm not sure where I was going with that... To be fair, at 1 AM last night I was pretty drunk. I can only speculate, but I imagine I was trying to say that the things we desire in women are encoded into our DNA (smart, strong, beautiful).

Although in hindsight, I don't know where I was going with the "strong" bit. Weak women are more desirable in general, I'd argue.

Arguably there's probably a limit to their smarts that we'd tolerate too. At least, I don't know any men that would enjoy having a woman that is significantly smarter than they are. But maybe that's just me and the people I know. I suspect not.

Obviously these rules are null and void for "gray area" sexual orientations that aren't wired in the "usual" way.

Beauty is not nurtured. As a general rule, most people are average so it doesn't matter much. Truly beautiful people are more rare. You can simulate this with make-up and deceptive clothing, but that all goes away in the shower. Nobody wants a mate that isn't attractive in the shower... And to be clear, average is still beautiful. It's only the rare unattractive people that are completely eliminted by beauty, but the average people will be subjectively beautiful to each observer.

Intelligence is nurtured in the sense that educated people are more intelligent than uneducated people. However, you can't argue that everybody with the same educational opportunities or even educational background are equally intelligent. Some of that is just built in. Some have more potential than others, and no amount of additional guidance or study will help. To borrow a Ron White line, you can't fix stupid.

Strength is largely nurtured, however, I've already pretty much eliminated that from the list so it doesn't really matter.

A more accurate list is probably beauty, beauty, intelligence, and beauty. Insert: I feel like I'm leaving out personality, but perhaps that fits under the intelligence category... Personality certainly matters too for women, though it can probably be in inverse proportion to beauty...

What, are you some kind of SJW that thinks that all people are equally valuable? Are you implying that Hitler was just as valuable as Pamela Anderson?

People do have value and usefulness to one another. It's not a static value. It's a subjective value, but a value nonetheless. In the more general sense, a woman is valuable if her genes are good for reproduction (i.e., no genetic diseases, beautiful, smart), she has a pleasant personality, and she is competent enough to look after children and hopefully the household. Or maybe you're a 3rd wave Feminist and you watch the children and manage the household while your wife works. Or maybe you're a 4th wave Feminist and you pay strangers to do it all.

It's absolutely bullshit to pretend that you don't assess the "value" or "usefulness" of other people because it's in our nature to do so. There's nothing wrong with that. It would be wrong to artificially limit the freedom or potential of other people based on your subjective assessment, but you're still making the assessment regardless. That other person is either useful to you or not. Valuable to you or not.

A complete cunt that is dog ugly and dumb as a rock is not going to be very useful to most of us, if any of us. If you disagree then please offer an anecdote. I can't imagine one at the moment.

Men are equally judged, if not more harshly since women tend to be more picky than men. Don't take this as some kind of one-sided "objectification" because it certainly isn't.. Women objectify men equally if not more so. Men literally are treated like objects in society. Hit them, kill them, take advantage of them, utilize them, throw them away. Nobody will bat an eyelash. Not even another man (with exceptions, for the few of us that are aware of it).

I don't believe that lesbian relationships require a masculine partner and a feminine partner. If anything I'd expect both partners to be more masculine than typical women. Not necessarily to the extreme of being like men, but certainly up to and including. I wouldn't exclude the possibility of two extremely feminine lesbians in a relationship, but I can't say I'd necessarily expect it or have ever knowingly witnessed it.

Also, I'd disagree that most men would not want a lesbian (or bisexual female, for that matter) partner. At least of the lesbians that I have knowingly met and interacted with they tend to be much more sensible than typical women. They make sense. They understand us better and we can understand them better. They're typically still feminine enough to find them attractive, but masculine enough to not be as frustrating. Of course, lesbians are generally out of the question because they won't find us as men attractive or useful, and they wouldn't be happy with us so the relationship would be unstable. I have no known experience interacting with bisexual women (though I'd expect them to lean towards women making your chances slim, and possibly, possibly, I'd expect them to prefer an open relationship so that they could experience both, though I do recall watching YouTube videos from one that said she was perfectly content with a monogamous relationship).

I happen to recall one particular girl that I knew from school that turned out to be a lesbian. You wouldn't have necessarily guessed it, but it didn't come as a complete shock to me either. She was an atypical woman. She was tall, athletic, and petite. I always found her very attractive. She was also relatively smart. She ended up getting a degree in mathematics (I forget just how far she went) and becoming a high school teacher.

QFT. When true atrocities occur to women in other countries Feminists don't even mention it. They aren't fighting for those women. Their only concern is their FWPs.

Value according to what criteria and "usefulness" for what purpose exactly?
Increasing GDP? Being funny? Creating works of art? Being a good companion? Being a loving and caring person? Being a person loved and cared for by others? Turning bambams on? Making bambams feel superior? Making bambams feel inferior? Advancing bambam's career? Do you even understand the difference between suitability for your own selfish aims and criteria that have at least the potential to be objective? Will you take the average of several factors to determine the consistent "value" of the person considered? Wouldn't it vary over time or from situation to situation? Do you think people never change? Do you think your observations are always accurate? Who says which are the right criteria and how to weigh them? Who are you to judge?

Since you mentioned Hitler: Hitler thought that Jews (by an awkward definition) were inherently less "valueable" and "useful" and believed this was objectively so. Disabled people were also killed by the Nazis, because they were considered to be less "valueable" (only costing money and attention that would be better spent on more "valueable" people)...

Do you realize that your hilarious comparison of Hitler with Ms Anderson illustrates just how empty and meaningless your concept of "value" must be?

To sum up, I don't think the "value" or "usefulness" of people is a useful or valueable concept in the first place. Stressing the differences in value is usually employed by assholes to legitimate their prejudices or some absurd theory. Stressing the equal value is just a reaction to that or some vague commitment to the principle of equality that's far too general to be meaningful.

The important question, though: Assuming a min/max comparison, what does it say about you that you put Ms Anderson on top of your list?

I thought so, too, at first, but I think he wasn't being consistent with that:

This sounded a bit like... you know genes and everything...
Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to this stuff. Let's say this is due to some very unpleasant conversations I've had. I've wanted to make the point clear, it was fun and I don't regret it.

This sounds more like "popularity" to me, but value?
Maybe I'm just confused by English, don't know. In German, talk like this really gives you some bad associations.

Edit: Ah, forgot to keep in line with standards of the thread: If you disagree with me, you must be one of them, Bruce Perry. Whatever that means, but I'm pretty sure.

We have a prime minister who wants to close the gender pay gap: