I'd like to see her try to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. Just to see how Russia responds. Personally I think it's about time the U.S. is brought down a peg or two. One can only hope that all the shit they've been shoveling around will eventually be dumped right on their front lawn.

I do enjoy watching people saying women aren't equal to men and use things like the wage gap or male dominated jobs as proof.

Biologically men and women will NEVER be equal and that is a fact that feminists refuse to acknowledge. They want equality, yet they keep making up genders to feel special: non-binary, gender fluid, and the laughable preferred pronoun horseshit. A transgender woman stated there are only two genders and she is being called racist and sexist (they love their buzzwords so much that they don't even use them properly anymore, severely trivializing the severity of the actual word). Watch firefighter training videos for proof. I recall one that showed a female firefighter coming up to a weighted door, it had enough pressure to simulate a door, but it was a hinge so it would roll down and the weight would reset it. The three men in front of her knocked it down no trouble, while she tried approximately four times before the instructor told her to go around.Feminists just can't accept that women aren't built for some jobs. They also can't accept that women aren't interested in some fields.

There aren't enough women in male dominated fields. Feminists are wanting to force quotas and force women into jobs whether they like it or not. They want women promoted because they are women instead of on the merit of their work. They don't realize that if you force a woman into a job she isn't familiar with or comfortable with then the work is going to suffer and the projects she is assigned to will be extremely slow going. The recent study also showed that women did poorly on the interview than men did, and of course this made feminists start arguing that the interview needed to be made easier. If you dumb down an interview to make it easier for people to get in then you will get people that can't actually do the job and again you will find your team, project, and company suffering. Sad part is that if you fire a woman, you get to worry about her claiming sexism (or racism) as to why they were fired.

Wage gap, this is another thing feminists preach about as proof of inequality. The wage gap is the median annual earnings for men and women. They use basic math and shoddy information to claim women make less than men. The math behind that is they take the median annual earnings of all women, divide it by the median annual earnings of all men. This gap doesn't take into account important factors that flux the numbers like hours worked, holidays worked, insurance, 401k, share holder, et. al. Best example I can think of is a woman I worked with in retail, she had worked at the company for 15 years, but due to family health she worked less hours than me to be with her husband more and took holidays off while I worked 40+ hours a week, worked holidays, and even came in on days off to help if someone was sick. I made minimum wage while she was making $14 or so an hour, yet our yearly earnings (using the wage gap math) would make her earning less than me for every dollar I earned because that is another factor the gap doesn't take into account, new workers versus veteran workers. I don't even think it takes into account different jobs within each field pay differently as a pediatrician gets paid less than a surgeon in the medical field.

Women are equal to men politically and work wise. The difference comes with the way they view the industry and their interests. For example, as I pointed out, there have been a lot of successful women in the tech field that have not had any experience of sexism that would be great to hold up as role models to encourage girls and other women to get into the industry, instead the media wants to hype up one or two claims that makes the entire tech field look sexist and effectively scare away any woman that is interested in tech or STEM for that matter. After all, Brianna Wu made a single, mediocre game with Unreal (Revolution 60) and Zoey Quinn made a rather lackluster game (used that word loosely) in Twine that was basically a story with hyperlinks (90s web site) loaded in an executable, but they're the two (with Anita) being sold as "the game industry hates women and these are the women fighting it" narrative.

Women are equal to men, but apparently not equal to each other. Kaley Cuoco stated publicly that she liked the traditional gender roles, she liked cooking for her husband. Feminists attacked her until she apologized. Matt Taylor wore a shirt designed by his female friend that depicted women in sexy poses, and feminists drowned out the accomplishment of landing a craft on a comet because they were too busy being offended by his choice of clothing so much so that he had to appear on television crying to apologize to the dipshits. This is the problem, we are raised to feel guilty for upsetting women and apologize for it. That is why anyone fighting feminists are viewed as bad because they are going against what we are taught. That is why feminism has been able to attack people without being called on it, because even when they are the attackers, people still view them as the victims. Feminism has run its course in the US and now the women that identify as feminists are mostly whining because they aren't getting special treatment. I've said it time and time again, if you are truly for equality across the board then you are an egalitarian, if you are seeking that equality by only viewing from the angle of women then you are a feminist, if you are seeking that equality by only focusing on men then you are wrong too.

Feminist want everyone to listen to a woman and believe her claims with no evidence. This thread shows that everyone does that just fine. Look at the feminist outrage when the police pointed out the UVA Rape was false. They started saying the chief was sexist and accused them of promoting "rape culture". Even when facts came out proving the claim was rubbish, they were still getting mad because they didn't just believe the woman and arrest the men she claimed did it, and put them in prison. Just like this, in the court of pubic opinion, people don't want facts, they read something and let their emotions dictate their actions. Facts come out bringing her claim into question and they still refuse to stop believing her. Seems everyone blindly think women can't or don't lie.

The only ones that don't allow women to have choices are other women. Because every time a woman make a choice that another woman doesn't like they attack them for it. For example, Anita Sarkeesian, the poster child for feminism right now, appeared on a panel saying choice feminism was bad and that the choice a woman makes for herself somehow effects all women as a whole (guess that means she is Butterfly Effect Feminism?).

If feminism wants to show it truly cares about women then they need to stop complaining about first world problems and focus on Saudi women and other women that get killed for voicing their opinion or wanting an education. I mean, Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head just because she wanted to get an education. Yet women in the US think an alleged 77 cents pay gap is more important than that? Screw that! The US is borderline Utopian for women compared to other countries that treat their women like cattle to be bought, sold, and slaughtered.

Why give evidence? You and everyone else has already shown that when faced with facts you chose to still blindly believe a lie.

Fact: No BigBro442 existed until after her article.
Response: He committed deplorable behavior!
Seems like being offended by behavior of a ghost is close to pearl clutching.

Wage Gap: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof.-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcQ7cA1I62w
http://www.dailydot.com/irl/gamergate-porn-home-invasion/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4s4pZNMq3Q

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/femicide-rise-central-america-article-1.1552233

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/img/highlights/Femicide-RN14-fig2.pdf

Difference is that I actually exist and any offensive behavior I exhibit is real. I'm not the fabrication of a unknown woman created to paint gamers in a negative light before she disappears from the internet.

This is a terrible statement. You're being very rude for no reason.

You say this but don't provide evidence. For example, the NPR piece I linked to previously has the developers of the game commenting on the issue as if BigBro442 exists. Why should I trust you over them?

I agree that the earnings gap is due to choices made by women and men. I'm aware the women tend to negotiate less, work less, and retire earlier.

But that's the thing: why do women make these choices? Is it social pressures? E.g., do women make these same choices in other cultures, or because of the social roles that women are caretakers and thus should tend the household, or something else? On the other hand, is it as a result of some intrinsic nature of the physiological differences between men and women? Most importantly, is the status quo (women earning less due to choices) acceptable or not?

Simply saying "that's the way of things" is not acceptable.

I'm not watching the videos.

...

I watched it. It was very poorly done.

The process of choosing party nominees has always been shaky and could hardly be called fair at any point in recent history (see summary p. 2-3).

In the video, the narrator discusses an article from Observer.com. (He didn't provide a link to the article, which I find irritating). I immediately was concerned about the objectivity of the outlet upon viewing the front page. Its publisher is Jared Kushner, who Trump's son-in-law and helped Trump's digital campaign tremendously (see here). There is an obvious bias here.

It claims the charter was violated. Firstly, that's not illegal. Secondly, I can't find out what bylaws were exactly violated. I'm sure it has to do with the leaders of the party actively working with Clinton, but a quick search only leads to articles claiming the same thing without citing specific bylaws.

I think the DNC had less to do with favoring the lifelong Democratic Clinton and more to do with disliking the lifelong independent Sanders. A classic "us vs them" sort of thing.

This is just a terrible rhetorical tactic with no substance. It assumes way too much about a simple gesture.

What? This is nonsense.

He is claiming Clinton being polite and friendly to those around her is a negative thing. He provides no reasoning as to why. That's absurd. (Personally, her friendliness made her more likable to me, and I'm still not even going to vote for her!)

He frames the situation wrong, as well. The media benefits from Clinton--she's socially liberal, but otherwise conservative (i.e., a neocon). The media is socially liberal (with few exceptions), but otherwise benefits greatly from increasingly laissez-faire markets in order to generate profits. See: Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. It comes in documentary form, though I have not watched it.

No evidence provided.

Frankly, the media desires profit, and Trump's antics provide viewership and thus profit.

- Funding ISIS: I'm not up-to-par on diplomatic relations, but I fear publicly shaming Saudi Arabia and "doing something" would be incredibly undesirable, considering Saudi Arabia's position in the Middle East and within the oil industry.

- Hating Americans: I don't see evidence of Clinton "hating Americans." Is he denying there is a sizable portion of Trump's base that is bigoted? Trump's policies and statements include: building a wall (xenophobic, racist), banning Muslims from entering the country (Islamphobic, arguably racist if it extends to stereotypical images of Muslims [e.g., Arabs/Persians]), fabricated statistics about blacks (racist), and mountain of sexist statements about women.

- His criticism of Clinton's campaign contributions apply to almost every single candidate to ever run. Why doesn't he include Donald Trump's donors as a comparison? Maybe because it would show there's nothing out of the ordinary?

- He claims Clinton is lying about her position to get money out of politics, but he doesn't provide any evidence other than "she received campaign donations."

- He claims the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from countries like Saudia Arabia is terrible, but doesn't provide any proof, only assumptions and speculation.

- I tried researched links between donations and actions made by Clinton, but found nothing worth a pinch of salt. I did find some interesting info from Politifact that shows the Foundation is boring and statements in the video about places like Arabia are incorrect or misleading. Saudi Arabia didn't provide donations while she was in office, for example.

Look, I'm not voting for Clinton. She will continue similar policies to benefit the 0.1% at the cost of everyone else. But I think Trump is a disgusting human who is by no means qualified to hold any office. And not like third party is any better: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein hold crazy beliefs and promote unworkable and disastrous policies. I would have voted for Sanders, like I did in the primary.

But this hate Clinton gets is unwarranted. She is no worse than Barack Obama, or George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Bush Sr, or Reagan. I have to wonder if the hatred comes from her actions, or from the fact she was a First Lady who had a successful career in politics before and after her husband's presidency? I fear it's the latter.

I edited my post about the first video.

I definitely agree. Especially with the points you highlighted (Zoe Quinn et al, workplace sexism, etc).

I just brought it up because I knew it would rile up bamccaig and Spectre Phoenix if they read it. Kind of like the "Women and Women First" skits from a show I watch, Portlandia:

Personally, I primarily receive news from BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera. It provides three somewhere-around-objective viewpoints that each have their own specific flaws and strengths.

I don't believe in free will. Our choices our the culmination of billions of years of cause and effect. They have no more freedom behind them than does a rock's freedom to roll off a mountain due to weathering and gravity and other forces. Choice is an illusion.

For example, I think criminals are also victims, and society is an enabler in criminal behavior and thus at fault. Funny.

Call me what you want. I identify as socialist, feminist, nihilist, humanist, and others.

Also, this is you:

{"name":"sheeple.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332.png","w":376,"h":401,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332"}

Yes. And yes.

That's the impression I get from most "Pro-#GamerGate" articles (and therefore Mr. Phoenix's posts in threads like this) that are posted. Someone does something mean and terrible and they're at arms to "defend it" by lashing out at everyone who sees the it as mean and terrible, and suggesting there is some sort of collective agenda behind it or that these people are conspiring in some way.

These terrible people are often only found in online settings, because the anonymity allows them to behave that way and expose their rotten innards without having to identify themselves.

Probably not fun to play games with, they're the ones who are bullying women when they identify as female, target them with sexual comments, etc. If you've spent any time in multiplayer games you've seen this, but if not, you're probably participating in it and are oblivious to what you're doing behind that mask.

I find it a sad state of affairs to think that everything is predetermined. A world without free will is kind of pointless.

Peoples' life experience makes them predisposed to make certain choices, but the choices are theirs to make nonetheless.

No, that's not how determinism works.

And #Gamergaters, too.