Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

  • ATTENTION: The National Security Administration has made a press release regarding a Windows 10 remote execution exploit that any website can take advantage of. It is one of the worst exploits that has ever been found. Update Windows immediately.

    NSA Press Release, "Am I vulnerable?"

Keine

The cooler ancient evil.
kiwifarms.net
I’ve said this before, but there’s a big difference between political messaging and propaganda, the latter of which Cr1tikal seems to be against. Propaganda isn’t art, it’s only made to push an agenda. However, it’s reductive to say that games should only be scary or “fun”. Fun is entirely subjective from person to person. As long as the mechanics are engaging and you have a reason to want to finish the game, you’re good.
I think it's not so much that games can only be "fun", so much as it is that he's saying games don't all have to have some kind of message or agenda, which I agree with for sure. Not every game has to mean something. It just has to be engaging and have some kind of objective you want to fulfill.

Those "new progressive leaders" aren't taking over because they're entirely incapable of actually leading a political party. Pelosi is by all means liberal but she can't drift that far left and still hold a leadership position in Congress. You're never gonna get someone insane like AOC as Speaker of the House, which I'm guessing is what they want.
 
Last edited:

TerribleIdeas™

Master of Cunt-Puppets
kiwifarms.net
I think SJW ism is born of aggression, a controlling nature, and a degree of education of a certain type.

It’s the kind of people who are aggressive and controlling, but not ‘brave’ (the wrong word.. physically confrontational?) enough to be out and out hooligans. It’s middle class controlling aggression basically.

It’s also a certain educational demographic. I’m from a very deprived working class area and nobody from that bit of my life posts this shit. They’re all based. The averagely smart people i know through university etc are riddled with it. The super smart ones aren’t. The ones who have had any time in the military or medicine aren’t.

The middle class SJWs look down on the working class demographic with a kind of disgust. And the working class demographic are also disgusted by the SJWs.

To me, SJWism is a marker of someone who doesn’t think critically, and is aggressive and controlling.
A lot of them also lack positive parental role models, so there's a shit-ton of "mommy/daddy issues", and a near complete inability to engage in rational conflict resolution.
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
a near complete inability to engage in rational conflict resolution.
Definitely. For this I blame the current state of academia, and the parenting trend of never saying no. Kids DO need boundaries, they learn by pushing against a boundary and if those are fair and reasonable that’s how they learn what’s right and wrong.

Academia is also to blame - we used to engage with ideas we found unpleasant, read about them, understand them and their context and then debate. Often vigorously, but with a framework of reason. Now all that is gone. Speakers are no platformed. Classes need trigger warnings. Students are told that exposure to ideas can be physically harmful. Their ability to confront reasonably, to understand and to challenge with data and debate is gone. All that’s left is to whine until the nasty scary ideas are taken away. Or to scream and browbeat until anything challenging is gone.

They are sitting ducks for genuine repression because they can’t resolve an argument, think critically, Rea search properly or debate. They’re in a state of permanent grievance and aggression because they can’t understand that differing opinions can coexist. All the grey areas and nuance are ignored. That’s really worrying for a secular society.

The reason STEM is resistant is that it relies on objective data and critical thinking.
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
Definitely. For this I blame the current state of academia, and the parenting trend of never saying no. Kids DO need boundaries, they learn by pushing against a boundary and if those are fair and reasonable that’s how they learn what’s right and wrong.

Academia is also to blame - we used to engage with ideas we found unpleasant, read about them, understand them and their context and then debate. Often vigorously, but with a framework of reason. Now all that is gone. Speakers are no platformed. Classes need trigger warnings. Students are told that exposure to ideas can be physically harmful. Their ability to confront reasonably, to understand and to challenge with data and debate is gone. All that’s left is to whine until the nasty scary ideas are taken away. Or to scream and browbeat until anything challenging is gone.

They are sitting ducks for genuine repression because they can’t resolve an argument, think critically, research properly or debate. They’re in a state of permanent grievance and aggression because they can’t understand that differing opinions can coexist. All the grey areas and nuance are ignored. That’s really worrying for a secular society.

The reason STEM is resistant is that it relies on objective data and critical thinking.
I'd add the trend of helicopter parenting to that list. Anything that might impede the child's self-esteem must be swept away.

Also, what do you think of the Geek Social Fallacies?
 

TerribleIdeas™

Master of Cunt-Puppets
kiwifarms.net
Who cares about abortion rights at "Planned Parenthood?"

Apparently men in dresses who can't even fucking reproduce are more important than people with uteruses.
Here's her official statement.

844962

(Archive)

845012


Okay, give me all the "mad at the internet" ratings now. Because I definitely am.



(Archive)

845031

845036


This woman is a vitriolic and absurd post-modernist feminist, one of the 3 involved in the Gregory Alan Elliot case (where he was charged with criminal harassment for disagreeing with Steph Guthrie, Anne, and an unnamed 3rd woman over the latter groups' desire to dox Bendelin Spur for his laughably bad flash-punch game starring Anita Sarkessian). I'm not at all surprised that she has problems finding people that want to listen to her rehash the same paranoid stories the average modern feminist insists on telling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Furina

Centerfold
kiwifarms.net
He was also chemically castrated because of his homosexuality. But you know, who gives a shit about historical accuracy, right? After all, history is just another instrument that the WhItEs use to oppress minorities.
Not actually castrated, but he was put on a chemical regimen that was supposed to suppress his libido... for a year. His suicide didn't come until a couple of years after he was off the chemicals. If you watch the movie they make it seem that the suicide was directly because of the chemicals, but if you read the actual biography it plays out quite differently.
 

Furina

Centerfold
kiwifarms.net
Wait what's the Geek Social Fallacies?
Basically, five social fallacies that geeks often fall into, leading to toxic or dysfunctional friendships.
Within the constellation of allied hobbies and subcultures collectively known as geekdom, one finds many social groups bent under a crushing burden of dysfunction, social drama, and general interpersonal wack-ness. It is my opinion that many of these never-ending crises are sparked off by an assortment of pernicious social fallacies -- ideas about human interaction which spur their holders to do terrible and stupid things to themselves and to each other.

Social fallacies are particularly insidious because they tend to be exaggerated versions of notions that are themselves entirely reasonable and unobjectionable. It's difficult to debunk the pathological fallacy without seeming to argue against its reasonable form; therefore, once it establishes itself, a social fallacy is extremely difficult to dislodge. It's my hope that drawing attention to some of them may be a step in the right direction.

I want to note that I'm not trying to say that every geek subscribes to every one of the fallacies I outline here; every individual subscribes to a different set of ideas, and adheres to any given idea with a different amount of zeal.

In any event, here are five geek social fallacies I've identified. There are likely more.

Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil
GSF1 is one of the most common fallacies, and one of the most deeply held. Many geeks have had horrible, humiliating, and formative experiences with ostracism, and the notion of being on the other side of the transaction is repugnant to them.

In its non-pathological form, GSF1 is benign, and even commendable: it is long past time we all grew up and stopped with the junior high popularity games. However, in its pathological form, GSF1 prevents its carrier from participating in -- or tolerating -- the exclusion of anyone from anything, be it a party, a comic book store, or a web forum, and no matter how obnoxious, offensive, or aromatic the prospective excludee may be.

As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as well go out for the football team.

This phenomenon has a number of unpleasant consequences. For one thing, it actively hinders the wider acceptance of geek-related activities: I don't know that RPGs and comics would be more popular if there were fewer trolls who smell of cheese hassling the new blood, but I'm sure it couldn't hurt. For another, when nothing smacking of social selectiveness can be discussed in public, people inevitably begin to organize activities in secret. These conspiracies often lead to more problems down the line, and the end result is as juvenile as anything a seventh-grader ever dreamed of.

Geek Social Fallacy #2: Friends Accept Me As I Am
The origins of GSF2 are closely allied to the origins of GSF1. After being victimized by social exclusion, many geeks experience their "tribe" as a non-judgmental haven where they can take refuge from the cruel world outside.

This seems straightforward and reasonable. It's important for people to have a space where they feel safe and accepted. Ideally, everyone's social group would be a safe haven. When people who rely too heavily upon that refuge feel insecure in that haven, however, a commendable ideal mutates into its pathological form, GSF2.

Carriers of GSF2 believe that since a friend accepts them as they are, anyone who criticizes them is not their friend. Thus, they can't take criticism from friends -- criticism is experienced as a treacherous betrayal of the friendship, no matter how inappropriate the criticized behavior may be.

Conversely, most carriers will never criticize a friend under any circumstances; the duty to be supportive trumps any impulse to point out unacceptable behavior.

GSF2 has extensive consequences within a group. Its presence in substantial quantity within a social group vastly increases the group's conflict-averseness. People spend hours debating how to deal with conflicts, because they know (or sometimes merely fear) that the other person involved is a GSF2 carrier, and any attempt to confront them directly will only make things worse. As a result, people let grudges brew much longer than is healthy, and they spend absurd amounts of time deconstructing their interpersonal dramas in search of a back way out of a dilemma.

Ironically, GSF2 carriers often take criticism from coworkers, supervisors, and mentors quite well; those individuals aren't friends, and aren't expected to accept the carrier unconditionally.

Geek Social Fallacy #3: Friendship Before All
Valuing friendships is a fine and worthy thing. When taken to an unhealthy extreme, however, GSF3 can manifest itself.

Like GSF2, GSF3 is a "friendship test" fallacy: in this case, the carrier believes that any failure by a friend to put the interests of the friendship above all else means that they aren't really a friend at all. It should be obvious that there are a million ways that this can be a problem for the carrier's friends, but the most common one is a situation where friends' interests conflict -- if, for example, one friend asks you to keep a secret from another friend. If both friends are GSF3 carriers, you're screwed -- the first one will feel betrayed if you reveal the secret, and the other will feel betrayed if you don't. Your only hope is to keep the second friend from finding out, which is difficult if the secret in question was a party that a lot of people went to.

GSF3 can be costly for the carrier as well. They often sacrifice work, family, and romantic obligations at the altar of friendship. In the end, the carrier has a great circle of friends, but not a lot else to show for their life. This is one reason why so many geek circles include people whose sole redeeming quality is loyalty: it's hard not to honor someone who goes to such lengths to be there for a friend, however destructive they may be in other respects.

Individual carriers sometimes have exceptions to GSF3, which allow friends to place a certain protected class of people or things above friendship in a pinch: "significant others" is a common protected class, as is "work".

Geek Social Fallacy #4: Friendship Is Transitive
Every carrier of GSF4 has, at some point, said:

"Wouldn't it be great to get all my groups of friends into one place for one big happy party?!"

If you groaned at that last paragraph, you may be a recovering GSF4 carrier.

GSF4 is the belief that any two of your friends ought to be friends with each other, and if they're not, something is Very Wrong.

The milder form of GSF4 merely prevents the carrier from perceiving evidence to contradict it; a carrier will refuse to comprehend that two of their friends (or two groups of friends) don't much care for each other, and will continue to try to bring them together at social events. They may even maintain that a full-scale vendetta is just a misunderstanding between friends that could easily be resolved if the principals would just sit down to talk it out.

A more serious form of GSF4 becomes another "friendship test" fallacy: if you have a friend A, and a friend B, but A & B are not friends, then one of them must not really be your friend at all. It is surprisingly common for a carrier, when faced with two friends who don't get along, to simply drop one of them.

On the other side of the equation, a carrier who doesn't like a friend of a friend will often get very passive-aggressive and covertly hostile to the friend of a friend, while vigorously maintaining that we're one big happy family and everyone is friends.

GSF4 can also lead carriers to make inappropriate requests of people they barely know -- asking a friend's roommate's ex if they can crash on their couch, asking a college acquaintance from eight years ago for a letter of recommendation at their workplace, and so on. If something is appropriate to ask of a friend, it's appropriate to ask of a friend of a friend.

Arguably, Friendster was designed by a GSF4 carrier.

Geek Social Fallacy #5: Friends Do Everything Together
GSF5, put simply, maintains that every friend in a circle should be included in every activity to the full extent possible. This is subtly different from GSF1; GSF1 requires that no one, friend or not, be excluded, while GSF5 requires that every friend be invited. This means that to a GSF5 carrier, not being invited to something is intrinsically a snub, and will be responded to as such.

This is perhaps the least destructive of the five, being at worst inconvenient. In a small circle, this is incestuous but basically harmless. In larger groups, it can make certain social events very difficult: parties which are way too large for their spaces and restaurant expeditions that include twenty people and no reservation are far from unusual.

When everyone in a group is a GSF5 carrier, this isn't really a problem. If, however, there are members who aren't carriers, they may want occasionally to have smaller outings, and these can be hard to arrange without causing hurt feelings and social drama. It's hard to explain to a GSF5 carrier that just because you only wanted to have dinner with five other people tonight, it doesn't mean that your friendship is in terrible danger.

For some reason, many GSF5 carriers are willing to make an exception for gender-segregated events. I don't know why.

Source
 
Dont know if this should be here or not but Chris Pratt was wearing a shirt with the gadsden flag on it and twitter being twitter thinks this is a sign of white supremacy. The replies in this thread are amusing. https://mobile.twitter.com/hunteryharris/status/1150866021147906055
View attachment 845860
Edit:spelling
Holy shit that whole thread is great. Almost all of them just saying "Uh what's problem with a flag celebrating America and being against tyranny?" And the dipshits can't answer it because all they know is the media told them to be mad about it. "uhh that snake means nazi now". Fucking morons.

I was pretty so so on chris pratt, but now I have to pretend to like him more than I do for triggering purposes...
 
Don't tell anyone, but this is totally why I have cats. In my mind, I'm all "Your name is Toby! *Whip noise*.

Didn't people have slaves to do work, not just for the pleasure of having someone to order around? Is this idiot claiming we somehow acquired the drive to be slavemasters genetically? Sounds like some kind of race-realist nazi to me.

EDIT: Ah, I detect emotional problems. She seems to fluctuate in weight quite a bit, looking at those pictures.

What do they call that, pro something... oh right, jection.
 

TerribleIdeas™

Master of Cunt-Puppets
kiwifarms.net
Don't tell anyone, but this is totally why I have cats. In my mind, I'm all "Your name is Toby! *Whip noise*.

Didn't people have slaves to do work, not just for the pleasure of having someone to order around? Is this idiot claiming we somehow acquired the drive to be slavemasters genetically? Sounds like some kind of race-realist nazi to me.
I added some context from her twitter account for you.
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino