https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2w0n4s/gamergate_music/

https://archive.fo/zHcUR

They will radicalize themselves there.

This is a problem.

Parler seems pretty calm to me so far. Far less angry than twitter

Also it's amazing how they're scaremongering about terrorist attacks happening and people co-ordinating on Parler.

So far it's mostly shit posting.

http://archive.is/rAxLf

http://archive.is/0SMR6

So firstly, I want to acknowledge that lots of people called them out on that part & OP got downvoted for almost all their comments + thread was locked. But, this person is definitely someone to point and laugh at for their absurdity and moralizing that often happens in these spaces.

NP link of original post

Removed comments from OP for more context

​

Here's some of my favourites:

If you need to see the acts {of violence} then that just means you lack the empathy.

I think every disturbing topic needs to be discussed, but not in the form of "fun and entertainment" nor does it need to be explicitly shown. Games with violence are specificaly designed to get some form of pleasure or gratification out of it, even if presented with consequences and horrific. Pleasure should not be associated/ experienced with violence.

​

No healthy, rational human proclaims "i like gore and violence"...

And yes you seriously need to re-adjust yourself. Times are changing, people of the future will view you as abhorrent and unthinkable, and horror as a genre will widely be viewed as gore-porn and getting off to people in bad situations. You want to be remembered for that?

​

They really like taking peoples words out of context & twisting to seem as if we're getting off to violence in some really absurd way, even if some admit to being entertaining. They're assuming it applies to real world morals. Here's the thing; most people find violence in games disturbing, a lot of violence shows realism & consequences, how it causes pain in another. Its possible for it to induce empathy from a person, not reduce it. That's like the whole fucking point even if it's entertaining or engaging. Mortal combat death scenes still make my skin crawl even if winning is satisfying. I'm still physically empathizing with the pain by imagining what it feels like.

Showing pain or resistance from characters instead of them being emotionless ragdolls that fade out of existence shows that violence hurts, it has consequences on living beings, whether or not you're for or against violence the message should get across in a lot of games.

​

Also my utmost favourite:

Corpse fucker.

​

http://archive.is/1xmma

This is horrifying.

You can tell what happens based on their positioning and see the MAGA kids walk up to the Native activist.

HE LITERALLY WALKED UP TO THE KIDS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLJLjuiRg8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKZ3fyhB4E&t=4339s

WHY DON'T YOU WATCH THE FULL FUCKING VIDEO BEFORE YOU START SUPPORTING PEOPLE CALLING FOR SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AND FOR KIDS TO BE THROWN IN WOODCHIPPERS!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKZ3fyhB4E

Seriously, Ghazi, you support those people, you deserve to have the same shit happen to you that they're calling for. Gamergate all over again with people like Geordie Tait calling for people to be thrown in gas chambers, and you fuckers supporting him.

I posted this here in case anyone needed to be reminded that Ghazi isn't anything but the enemy who wants to literally see the people they don't like, dead. The only thing that has changed about them, is that they're lying now about other people wanting them dead.

Obligatory archive link;

http://archive.is/gdb6A

Hey. I know it's been a minute since I've been around here, but I'm on break and I saw bait that I couldn't resist. At first, it's just going to be mildly humorous, me mocking people for their foolish arguments that they are forced into by their ideology. It will turn genuinely sick toward the end though, so if you have any degree of humanity left in you, or you just ate, you may want to come back to this later.

Yeah, I don't think people have problems with John Wick or Mad Max Fury Road, usually when I see feminist/leftist critique of violent media is when it's basically female suffering for the pleasure of the viewer or stuff like that.

http://archive.is/8rAGE

http://archive.is/KGW4l

It's important to remember that Anita Sarkeesian is just a person and not, like, the Pope of feminism.

I don't see any serious feminist academics disagreeing with her take on things. It doesn't matter whether or not she's one person, or the Poop of Feminism or whatever you want to call it; the only thing that matters is if she is accurately representing feminist ideology, specifically, the mainstream of feminist ideology.

Sarkeesian herself is on-record saying "Feminism is not about personal choice; feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class; [and as things stand right now, according to her] women cannot meaningfully choose liberation." That was her argument against the thing she saw as the misnomer of "choice feminism." If she didn't represent the mainstream of feminist ideology, you specific point about the general feminist stance on violence might hold water, but most of the mainstream and the academic side of feminism agrees with her position re: feminism. So. . . she's your poop. You made her, you crowned her, own her. Yes, this was a multi-layered pun. I hope you enjoyed the shitshow, because it's about to lose all humor.

I loved MMFR but she's right, it's absolutely a film that celebrates violence and has a childish take on "feminism". Movies like that certainly do more harm to our society than good.

There you have it folks; movies doing harm to society. The fact that they think this is even possible shows how far gone they really are, not that they're merely wrong, but also in exactly how their warrant in this enthymeme implicitly defines "harm." The Frankfurt school and its inheritors believed it is possible to "make a communist," and one of the primary mechanisms for doing so was the tight control of art. At first, it was only done through critical theory, because they didn't have the power to censor directly. Once they did, the Soviets made most Slavic fairy tales illegal because they were "counterrevolutionary." It wasn't until certain academics could argue that those stories had a pro-communist message that some of those fairy tales were allowed back into the public. For more information, Google the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers; they weren't so much an association of writers as they were a government-approved literature censorship committee. Our unhinged ideological enemies believe, rather than art being used to show the hammer what the world looks like to the rest of the toolbox, the purpose of art is indoctrination, and they want to be in control of it because they believe art is fit for that purpose. Hang on, it gets worse.

Like most mainstream geek culture, it reinforce a violence is fun and justified world-view.

Have you ever actually gone out and participated in violence? I have; it is fun. We know what happens to the human body's chemistry when it engages in an act of desperate violence, and recreational violence can be fulfilling on a level deeper than the physical. Just look at all the "BJJ is my anti-drug" memes, or talk to how people feel the first time they manage to pass a guard in sparring or stuff a takedown. The trick is to practice that recreational violence in a way that is both safe for everyone and respectful to one's punching b- err, opponent.

We have art that celebrates violence in this way because this is a primal reality that we cannot get away from. . . at least as far as men go. Women are, generally speaking, far less-inclined to engage in recreational pain of this variety.

Violence is also justified, in many cases. If I have to say any more than that on this subject, I'm talking to someone who belongs in a mental institution.

It is about to get much worse.

But I don't think this critique is inherently feminist (beyond the banal fact that violence is more valued in and against men, I guess) and I have never seen it presented as such.

Violence is not more valued in men by society. It is more valued in women. It is valued against men though. Just look at how people react when women get violent against men. They're celebrated as heroes. We will come back around to this point.

I agree that society shouldn't dismiss "feminine" virtues like caring and cooperation, but I'd prefer if our culture encouraged those traits in men, if only because I don't consider it feminist to discourage "masculine" traits in women.

Caring and cooperation should be encouraged in men. . . because men don't care, and don't cooperate, apparently. Whoever wrote this has never been on a SAR or SAR-Ex, if anyone who reads this knows what that means. Men don't need any encouragement to be caring or cooperative; women need to be encouraged to be more caring toward and cooperative with men specifically. I'll come back to that point too when I come back to that point about women being violent against men.

Note: I've seen John Wick in here as a guilty pleasure, but I would say that's a very fascist film. He won't negotiate, he won't compromise, he wants to kill everyone.

Interesting; would you negotiate or compromise with fascists? Or rapists? Or would you want to kill them all?

Nobody's saying we shouldn't have them at all. What we're saying is that media often depicts violence as the best solution to all problems everywhere, even when in real life you'd be convicted for mass murder, then probably sent to death row. It doesn't convince anyone to go out and murder anyone themselves, but what it does often do is get people to think violence is the solution more often, even if it's not an over the top level of violence.

Most of us don't even think there should be less violence, it's just that we'd like it if it occasionally put that violence in a proper context or showed consequences.

What about when that "proper context" doesn't materialize in the real world? What about when someone gets away with the violence because it is tacitly sanctioned for being against the proper targets? The only reason violence didn't work for Nazi Germany, is because other, more violent more dangerous people came along and made violence work for them instead. Not only does the real world not conform to your morals, but even your morals are sick.

Right now, so many people think violence is the proper to solution to problems that we've got people wanting to drop us out of helicopters right now.

Yes, because we believe violence is the solution to violent people, and history has shown us time and again that it is. The one fatal weakness to a bully is someone who isn't afraid to cripple a bitch for life. You don't want to get thrown out of helicopters, stop acting like a bunch of violent psychopaths. . .this point goes especially for some women out there, who get violent and then whine about violence coming back on them, which, again, I will come back to here shortly.

Violent action is glorified and shown often to be the best and true path to redemption. Look at the insanity of John Wick's reaction to his dog's death. He could, and should have stared grieving and trying to emotionally accept it as a person, which is absolutely the action his late wife would have wanted him to take.

I want, after reading this, to find one of your female friends who has been raped, and tell them instead of wanting to physically attack their rapist in revenge, that the proper response isn't to do that, it's to heal and come to terms with the trauma she suffered, to, as you put it, emotionally accept it as a person. Never mind justice, which can be a critical component of recovery, never mind that men in particular recover best by engaging in action they find fulfilling. Your answer to difficulty is to allow people to be victimized. . . like this; (Warning: I told you this was going to get very, very ugly, despite starting out humorous. Here's your last chance to back out).

The first clip is the important one, but the other two are in there for context in the first video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHIZ4qboYNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZH6YSQvwA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GccCWo_eZdw

In this next one, she does her level-best to slash the security guard's throat. She did not, to my knowledge, so much as get charged with a crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1NMJiOYYeY

The only reason violence didn't work for her was because she failed to execute. . . in more ways than one, thank God.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/there-is-nowhere-for-us-to-go-domestic-violence-happens-to-men-too/news-story/d736e990f7528ade77ef3ba69e99f53e

John Wick's response was violence because he had no other option. It was either allow those people to get away with what they had done, to have no justice, and to be a victim, or not allow himself to be devoured by the monster. That's why he turned violent against his attackers, that's why we wish violence upon you, and that's why some of us take visceral pleasure in videos like these;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1L8auVSCEg

Violence is what you get when people believe they aren't being heard, or, to quote one of those evil nasty dead white guys, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." I would not be remotely surprised if none of those people on that cancerous subreddit have ever been a fight, in a sporting context or otherwise. They're like the women in that last video I linked; they don't understand the reality of violence, they have never heard of the "puncher's chance," what that means for the difference between less-lethal and lethal force, and how that affects escalation between the two. Like Tupac, men are caring and cooperative, so they're told they're too nice, and they get taken advantage of by the kind of women in those videos, and then the intelligentsia give the kind of advice to men (come to terms with what happened to you emotionally so you can start healing) that they would never give to a woman who just got raped, despite it being more applicable in the latter-case.

Anyone who reads this, never forget the kind of people we're dealing with in Ghazi and those they are aligned with; they dehumanize, they gaslight, and they want to destroy any art that they believe (rightly or wrongly) does not shape peoples' minds into the form they want. Any art that doesn't fit their prescription, is "harmful." This is the progressive left.

Exhibit A:

Avoid the overly broad use of “Jews” or “Israelis” when what you really mean are the policies or practices of the Israeli government. There are many Jews, and many Israelis (including Israeli Arabs), who are actively campaigning against those policies and practices, after all! Be specific.

Exhibit B:

All white people are racist [...]

Conclusion. Be excellent to each other.

https://old.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/8uulii/maxine_waters_and_the_trope_of_the_angry_black/e1ija1e/

Obligatory archive link;

http://archive.is/PhsON

Even with the progressive bunch, there's too many that seem to believe scoring points in a culture war is all that matters, even with bad material.

people got mad at me for saying this last time but TLJ is badly-written garbage and it's a hill i'm willing to die on.

What killed TLJ for me is the fact that it's yet another rehash like TFA, but isn't nearly as fun as its predecessor and actually retroactively ruins the better films in the franchise.

It's not far off from the kind of people that think a good story is good entirely based upon the existence of a plot twist and how surprising the plot twist is.

Tbh tho, my biggest gripe with the film at this point is the fact that I think people are only even defending it this hard is due to the Culture War.

It's nuts, it's like you can't not like the current trilogy without being some alt-righter or something. Like, damn, guys, didn't know real leftism was blindly supporting the products of massive, multi-billion dollar media conglomerates hellbent on ruling the world.

All presented entirely without comment.

http://archive.is/FQaRo

Obligatory archive link.

http://archive.is/GE4KU

It's been a long time since I've been legitimately angry. I tend to use a lot of harsh language like curse words and insults when I post on Shitghazisays, usually for rhetorical effect. I've been called angry or mean or nasty before for my rhetorical style. Well, now I'm angry.

I'm a writer, of the creative bent. I specialize in fiction, and I believe, like Nietzsche (go ahead, make all the "pretentious" cracks you like) that "good prose is written only face to face with good poetry." You might be surprised to learn that most educated folks still don't know what poetry is for. Poetry is about clear, vibrant, accurate expression. When I write a poem, I want my reader to feel like they've experienced something beyond the words on the page. I still think "show, don't tell" is the worst kind of trite advice you can give to an aspiring author. If Kurt Vonnegut followed that platitude, we wouldn't have Breakfast of Champions. That's what skilled use of language does; you can feel the breath of the beast you stand face-to-face with, the heat, the moisture, you can hear the scratchy panting. You might even be able to feel that nervous lizard-pulse that let's you know you're about to fight, or run, until you're safe, or you die. When written well, this experience can rightly be called "art."

Well, my art has failed me. I am insufficient. I do not know how to give voice to how enraged and infuriated I am. I just erased a line of this post because I thought it would do the job, but it didn't. It was something stupid about a clenched fist. Even when I give it my best, something like, "I am so angry I feel the nausea in my muscles instead of my stomach," it doesn't do the job. Have you ever been so angry before, that as you were calming down, you felt spent? Weak? Nauseous? I feel that way right now, only the nausea isn't confined to my stomach, and I haven't calmed down. If that sounds ridiculous, or stupid, wait until you hear what I'm actually angry about. Here's a hint; it's not what has happened to Count Dankula.

I'm angry at you, Ghazi. Do you know why? I'll show you why.

State abuse of power, tbh. What he did makes him a massive prick, but jail time? Why should my taxes go towards incarcerating this dufus?

You have been pushing for that State abuse of power. These are hate-speech laws in action.

I know pretty much nothing about the man. If he wasn't a fascist asshole before, he almost certainly is now. I'm very much not okay with hate speech, but I think my priorities with respect to frozen peaches would change remarkably fast if I were staring at potentially a year in prison.

This one just about set my eyes popping out of my skull, and I mean that literally. When I screamed after reading this, I could actually feel pressure behind my eyeballs trying to escape around them and through my sockets. Not that I didn't know about your principle here already; "It doesn't matter until it affects me" has always been the policy of SJWs, which is what makes Alinsky's Rule 4 so valuable.

The guy should be mocked mercilessly by individuals, news services, the public, and basically every living being on Earth, but Im always wary of government setting the standards for speech.

I would say, "then stop providing cover to the people on your side who want to set government standards for speech" but I don't believe you're serious here, because those actors are good for your cause, and that's all you care about.

The one that did it for me, the one that has convinced me that you people are not even human, was this;

If we allow the state to define the limits of acceptable speech, it will not just be speech to which we object that gets curtailed.

We have been telling you this for literal years. You have responded with "Frozen peaches." Every. Single. Time. "Oh, but you haven't been about government censorship, only about public mockery and shame!" Shut up. You people have gone after other peoples' jobs over what they've said, and have likely done far more damage than the government ever will. For people who go on and on about how corporate tyranny is just as bad or worse than government tyranny, you people don't seem to realize that the government isn't the only threat to personal freedom out there. Or maybe you've done what you've done precisely because you understand that.

You and those like you are the reason this happened. This is your fault. Own it. Stop pretending like this isn't what you wanted.

I'm not sure, but I think I hate you now. All of you. I don't mean "hate" the way you always use it, like it applies to every petty insult or uninformed opinion. I mean, I think I'm at a place right now where I could, like some of you did before, celebrate if I heard some of you were on your deathbeds from something like cancer. Before, it was just about all the absolutely terrible arguments I saw on your subreddit. Now, I no longer care about what you have to say. You've earned my deepest contempt. I just wish I had command enough of my own native tongue to tell all of you how much I hate you.

I made a video where I go though how much gaming media has changed and how this has lead to major outlets having a decreased quality of content to attract mass audiences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR6gqpXobos

Hope you give it a watch and enjoy

Back to the KKK for me

http://archive.is/5680K

I don't think they've learned their lesson. This is going to look about as brutal as that Channel 4 smackdown.

Okay, so can the general public stop pretending that this guy is a legitimate scholar and social theorist? Please?

He got a degree, legitimately, from an accredited institution, and he backs up his claims with facts the vast, overwhelming majority of the time. Just because he said something you disagree with, doesn't mean he isn't a legitimate academic. In fact, it probably means you're wrong.

You saying that he can't be an expert? That's sexist! So much for tolerant feminists /s

This, without the sarcasm. Anyone can be an expert on whatever it is that they study, if they put the time and effort into it, and they have the inclination. It's time to do away with Standpoint theory and so-called "strong" objectivity. Sandra Harding was a con artist.

Apparently he's a decent psychologist, but that does not qualify him to talk about social science.

Psychology is a field in social science, you piss-brained amoeba.

I don't understand how he could be if thinks all of women's issues stem from

You're worse than that fucking reporter and the idiot who wrote that headline. The argument was that feminists support violent invaders because they want to be violently invaded by those violent invaders. That statement didn't say shit about "women's issues," which, if we're being honest here, feminism doesn't give a shit about. It never did.

I'm so sick and tired of the Peterson "self improvement" cult.

Yes, we know you hate it when men work to better themselves and their lot in life, and to make themselves more valuable to the people around them, and find fulfillment in doing so. Stop shoving your misanthropy in my face, please.

There was a hugely popular article on The Atlantic this week seemingly trying to defend Jordan Peterson and saying all his critics just put words in his mouth

It was infuriating to read

I'll bet it was. Cathy Newman has more honor than any of you ever will.

I've been seeing this sentiment ever since Trump announced his campaign for presidency. He's not fooling me into thinking this is an original idea.

The hypothesis isn't original, no, but some of the arguments in support of it are.

Far right wing dumbasses tend to repeat the same stupid talking points and memes over and over. Walking in lockstep with each other is a really huge part of the far right wing.

Far left wing dumbasses tend to repeat the same stupid talking points and memes over and over. Walking in lockstep with each other is a really huge part of the far left wing.

Then why don't we support guys like Jordan Peterson?

Because he's not a violent invader looking to violently invade feminists. Unless of course you think he and Muslims are the same. Which position are you rolling with?

WHY WON'T THEY FUCK ME!!!!

Because we're terrified of getting slapped with a false rape accusation because you decided to get hormonal the morning after.

Don't make arguments you can't back up. Call me troll and ignore me all you like, I will continue to point people to this subreddit every time they point me to yours. I've got ironclad, ready-made counter-arguments prewritten out here to pretty much every stupid thing you idiots have ever said.

http://archive.is/ipoPB

This is not going to be my usual scathing mockery of people I consider fools. I think several of the posters in the linked threads have interesting and useful things to say about Le Guin, who was one of the greatest writers of fantasy and science fiction, precisely because she worked real literary quality into her prose and storytelling; she is easily a contender for "greatest writer ever."

This is worth marking. We lost not only a fantastic writer who spent decades contributing to sf specifically and to American literature generally, but one who fundamentally believed in the equality of all people, and didn't deign to weasel out of this core belief like a lot of other sf writers. She was still giving fascists shit well into her 80s, most notably with the scathing stuff she wrote about the "occupation" of state land by right wing militia groups in the last coupe years.

I never met her but I read a lot of her correspondences and basically everything she ever wrote, and it's clear to me that we lost a clarion voice today.

Here's a short reading list if you wanna get into stuff (this is off the top of my head so bear with me/feeel free to suggest other things)

The Left Hand of Darkness (This novel deals with notions of gender and cultural relativism. Very famous).

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (Very well known short story that takes on utilitarian ideas. Exceedingly beautiful prose).

The Dispossessed (A novel that casts a very critical eye at the failings of socialist thought/communistic societies, etc. Le Guin was never afraid to turn her writer's eye upon herself too.)

The Word for World is Forest (This novel is, in part, what the movie Avatar was based on, though without all the weird whitewashing. Deals with environmentalism, mysticism, and conquest.)

The Earthsea Trilogy (A set of three short novels that provide a kind of counterpoint to Tolkein-esque, binary morality of wizards and other weirdness. These works are much more interested in the dangers of power, and how it can warp people with otherwise good intentions. Very much worth reading.)

Like other sf writers, some of these works are part of larger series, like the Hainish Cycle and some other Earthsea books that take place apart from the trilogy bits. There's also fantastic stand-alone novels I haven't even mentioned.

She ran the gamut, though, from straightforward sf narratives to complex and emotional works that nonetheless embraces elements of the genre. She also wrote poetry, YA stuff, and experimental pieces.

She was truly a unique voice in the genre, but, in the way that real geniuses do, she transcended the trappings of genre and, or perhaps rather followed them down to their logical terminus, and found some universal stuff about humanity. I'm very sad about her passing, but glad she lived a long and fruitful life.

Well said, Ghazelle. There are other mentions of her phenomenal fiction work, but I think just as important is some of her amazing nonfiction work. I'm a writer, which is to say that I practice the craft of writing and do my best to not starve while making it my primary mode of income. I'm not doing very well at that. It was authors like Le Guin though that made me realize that real value art has, as explained in her remarkably insightful Introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness, linked.

http://theliterarylink.com/leguinintro.html

Everything you told us was a lie, because you knew how to show us the truth.

A lot of feminists these days seem to measure their success in how many of them are CEOs compared to women, but Le Guin was a feminist with a different metric for success. Upon my adopting of this metric, my life didn't just get more fulfilling, but I saw how to unearth all the fulfillment I was missing. She showed the world this view of success in A Left-Handed Commencement Address at Mills College in 1983, linked.

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/LeftHandMillsCollege.html

I'm growing my roots deep, thanks to you.

I'm still much too knowledgeable, still asking the wrong questions, still too uncomfortable with ignorance. I happily grow more ignorant by the day though. Tonight, I will enjoy a dram in your honor, as well as pour one out, so it can be the drink we both enjoy.

Then again...nusuth.

Obligatory archive link;

http://archive.is/SPCeP

No comments yet,but this article was so bad I just had to tear it apart. Not too long ago I said there are a lot of idiots out there that do not understand the Star Wars saga. Time to nail these fuckers to the wall and expose their lies for all to see. The following link contains an article that is so full of shit I'm not sure how they managed it.

http://archive.is/r5m23

Time to break the important bits of this article down, piece-by-piece.

The brilliant minds over at Pop Culture Detective

This is not sarcasm. She actually thinks FullMcIntosh is a smart guy.

changed the way that I see the Jedi Order in Star Wars in a mere 25 minutes.

That's because you're a fucking moron who will believe anything said by anyone who agrees with you.

The same folks who created the excellent video about “adorkable” misogyny in The Big Bang Theory and coined the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope have a new video that’s a must-watch for Star Wars fans. In examining the “remarkably male-dominated and male-identified” Jedi Order—all Jedi speaking roles in the two trilogies are men—Pop Culture Detective identifies the “unhealthy and deeply stoic ideas about masculinity” that are baked into the most fundamental of the Order’s teachings.

This is the thesis of the author's argument. For anyone who reads this rebuttal, it is very important that you keep this in mind. There are a couple of related claims baked into this thesis, which we will come back to as needed.

The Jedi are depicted as an honorable and heroic collection of warrior-monks with hard-earned skills and often incredible abilities. We’re meant to sympathize with the Jedi—but it’s intriguing to watch, as laid out above, how strictly the Jedis impose a lack of sympathy for others on their trainees.

First, a brief aside; "Jedis?" Jedi is both singular and plural, like Samurai. That out of the way, there is not a single shred of evidence in all of the films (except for perhaps the sequel trilogy) for this claim. Like Anakin Skywalker says in Attack of the Clones, the Jedi encourage compassion for others, which he describes as unconditional love. There are some people out there that think Anakin was lying here to get into Padme's pants, but his argument is backed up by the actions of the Jedi. Yoda goes to Kashyyyk because he is friends with the Wookiees. Qui-Gon, when dealing with Anakin, is always very kind and nurturing. He's not saccharine, but he demonstrates that he cares when he tells Anakin the honest truth, and let's him know that being a Jedi isn't easy. If the Jedi didn't encourage sympathy for others, it shouldn't have occurred to Qui-Gon to tell Anakin that the life of a Jedi "[is] a hard life." That's not something you warn people about if you have sympathy for them. We see the ultimate difference between the Sith and Jedi when Anakin tells Obi-Wan he hates him, and Obi-Wan responds by telling Anakin he loves him.

We watch a very young Anakin Skywalker being rejected by an entire council of Jedi for being “too emotional,” that is, a child still daring to care about his enslaved mother and existing in a state of distress for her wellbeing.

Are you just counting on no one having watched the prequels, or not remembering them, or agreeing with you because a large enough contingent doesn't like them?

https://youtu.be/Esf59wk1yFQ?t=1m49s

Matthew Stover gets it right. Anakin is not about his mother's well-being, he's about the feelings he has for his mother. He can't bear to be separate from her. That's not healthy. That's an unhealthy attachment. He isn't rejected for being too emotional, he's rejected for the emotions he has being out of balance. He is rejected because he is psychologically unwell, and the council can see that.

Anakin was hot-headed and dangerous. You don't get someone with a propensity toward violence that kind of power. If you recall, the entire council from day one believed Skywalker was dangerous. What they saw in that council chamber in Revenge of the Sith, when he lost it when they refused to grant him the title of master (which he had not earned) just because he yelled loud enough, you think they made the wrong decision by not granting him that rank? In budo, martial art, you demonstrate that you have that kind of anger, they don't just not promote you, they kick your ass out, for damned good reason.

He is roundly mocked

That is a lie. Not a single Jedi master ever mocks Anakin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tav3bI4M6I

They don't mock him. He makes a fucking scene about "unfairness" and they all start looking at each other with wtf looks, like they just set of a nuclear explosion, and they did. Anakin had zero grounds to lose his shit like that. He's not just "emotional" he's unstable. Anakin even apologizes because he fucking knows he's in the wrong.

“Emotional detachment is valued above all else in the Jedi Order,” Pop Culture Detective points out,

No, not emotional detachment, see again Matthew Stover's comments in the interview, the guy who, after spending several hours taking notes from Lucas himself, wrote the Revenge of the Sith novelization, probably the best Star Wars book ever written. In Lucas' own words, we have the problem with Anakin explained.

"He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can't let go of his mother; he can't let go of his girlfriend. He can't let go of things. It makes you greedy. And when you're greedy, you are on the path to the dark side, because you fear you're going to lose things, that you're not going to have the power you need."

He literally couldn't let go of her so much that he literally choked her to death. How do you fuckers manage to miss this?

“Anakin Skywalker is asked to wear a mask of emotional invulnerability,”

No, he isn't. That is what he tries to do and why he fails. He is advised to find a way to be okay with loss, because all things experience loss. See the Lucas quote above.

The video drives home that this Jedi way is reflective of our own real-world injunctions set upon young boys and men from childhood on, from the minute they’re told to “be a man,” that is, toughen up, push through a difficulty, and don’t dare show any emotion that could be construed as an exploitable “weakness.”

Luke's entire experience in the cave in The Empire Strikes Back proves you 100% wrong on this. That was all about Luke dealing with his anger rather than hiding or avoiding it, and it was ultimately him dealing with his anger, learning to let go of it, that enables him to say, "I am a Jedi, like my father before me."

“Bury your feelings deep down, Luke,” Obi-Wan’s Force ghost warns Luke Skywalker, lest he betray his love for his sister Leia and open himself up to that emotionally slippery path to the Dark Side.

That almost happened. When Vader realized that he had a means of driving a hook into Luke, the anger he was able to provoke out of Luke almost ended in Anakin's death. Luke almost killed his father, the very thing that made him so angry at Darth Vader in the first place. That wasn't advice for how to live one's general life, that was specific advice not to reveal a critical piece of information to a master manipulator, and as proof, Obi-Wan said of Luke's feelings, "they do you credit." Obi-Wan saw Luke's feelings as a marker of what a good person Luke was. He didn't see them as a negative, but as a potential means by which the enemy could get their hooks into him.

What’s illustrated well here (and somewhat encouragingly) is that like his father before him—but to better ends—Luke refuses to listen to these Jedi maxims.

And when he does, he gets his hand cut off, and Han gets captured. When he refuses to listen again, he nearly murders his own father in a fit of rage.

He ignores Yoda and Obi-Wan’s pleas to complete his Jedi training on Dagobah and let Leia and Han be sacrificed for a “greater” cause and hops into X-wing to save the day.

See above...but it is interesting though. Old Luke would have slapped NuLuke in the face and said "get in your damned X-Wing and go save your friends or so help me I will do it myself while you rot on this island." Is it any wonder Mark Hamill said they butchered Luke's character?

“Luke doesn’t take the Jedi orthodoxy surrounding emotional detachment to heart,” Pop Culture Detective notes. “Luke Skywalker is at his very best when he doesn’t follow the path of the Jedi.” It’s Luke’s caring heart and his trust in the innate emotional bond of family that turns the entire tide of the original Star Wars trilogy.

You mean the compassionate, selfless love, as described by Stover, Anakin, and Lucas that the Jedi, according to all of them, profess as their primary point? You're saying that's not Jedi orthodoxy? In the words of Yoda "Jedi use the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack [...] when you are calm, at peace, passive, you will know." Being calm and at peace isn't wearing an emotional mask, and that GIF you're using of Luke tossing aside his lightsaber, is embodying the ultimate Jedi principle of using the Force not for aggression, but for knowledge and defense. You and FullofOldTosh are, well, full of old tosh.

And it’s the former Anakin Skywalker’s lingering, unsuppressed emotion for his child that allows that to happen.

That, in the words of Stover, thaws Anakin out of the ice of Darth Vader? Yes. It is, as the Greeks call it, agape.

Many of us know Yoda’s famous Phantom Menace speech, played in its trailers again and again: “Fear is the path to the dark side … fear leads to anger … anger leads to hate … hate leads to suffering.” But in the video, they explore how this “emotional domino theory” constructed by the Jedi is deeply flawed and hugely problematic, not just for the characters in a movie but for the generations of people who grow up idolizing the Jedi.

Got it. So people don't fear what they don't understand, don't grow to hate the things they're afraid of, don't lash out in anger at the things they hate, and that lashing out totally doesn't cause suffering. Well, you've just found a great counter-argument for the bigots to use whenever they're met with the "people fear what they don't understand" argument.

It is the continued insistence that men not show fear or grief or sadness

Where does a single Jedi ever insist upon this?

that is often the instigator of anger and violence, not the mere existence of those initial emotions.

Anakin, because he wasn't relying on his anger, didn't immediately murder Dooku. Only at the urging of Palpatine, who was suggesting Anakin ignore Jedi precepts and look to his fear to guide him, did Anakin murder a beaten opponent.

Bottling up emotions causes them to fester and explode.

That is true, but he didn't do that because of Jedi teaching. He did that because he thought he was better than what he was, and every insistence that Anakin stop being so selfish was met with the selfish idea that if he were just stronger, he could keep what he wanted and not fall.

Also extremely problematic is the way that the movies, especially the prequels, imply that “it’s loving relationships with other persons that leads men down the path to evil

Yeah, like that time when Obi-Wan's love for Anakin made him turn in his earth-tone robes for black and kneel before Sidious. Darth Benny had a great origin story. Seriously are you fucking retarded? Again, refer to Stover's explanation of selfish greed vs. actual love.

It’s made abundantly clear that Anakin turns into Darth Vader because he’s unable to suppress his love

It's made abundantly clear that Anakin wasn't able to let go of his greed for being in the presence of another person. To call Anakin "clingy" would be the understatement of the century. Seriously why does no one, the feminists of all people, recognize that Anakin was a controlling, dangerous stalker who had severe issues to work out?

“That women are the catalyst for men’s loss of control is a deeply sexist worldview,” Pop Culture Detective emphasizes.

Only if it's for all men. It is certainly for some. Anakin's problem, was vice, what the Greeks would have called "Ate." That was Anakin's tragic flaw, the greed he refused to divest himself of.

They highlight a scene in which Anakin, upset over disturbing dreams about Padme, goes to Yoda to ask the great Jedi master for counsel, and receives what they term “the worst advice in the history of the galaxy” from Yoda: “The fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side … train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose.”

When you step back and look what Yoda tells Anakin to do, Yoda is prescribing a cold, self-enforced emotionless state utterly separated from anyone and anything that Anakin has dared to care about.

Only if you think learning to let go of someone means not caring about them. Or if one of your loved ones has a DNR and, as they're slipping into unconsciousness, begs you to not keep them on life-support, are you the kind of asshole who won't pull the plug because you can't bear to see their vitals shut down? Lucas said that he made Star Wars because he believed the modern world had forgotten certain realities that old-world wisdom took to be commonplace. This was one of those things. It's always the people who can't understand why Anakin was wrong who would make the exact same mistakes in the real world that he would.

Jedi philosophy gets it entirely backwards: emotional detachment doesn’t prevent men from turning to the Dark Side, emotional detachment is the cause of men turning to the Dark Side.

You don't even know what the dark side is, or emotional detachment, apparently. The kind of emotional detachment you are talking about, if it were possible, would be an iron-clad defense against the dark side because the dark side is anger, fear, and aggression. Do you know who encourages men to not deal with their anger? Assholes who say shit like "men have been socialized to believe the only appropriate emotion for them to express is anger." The dark side is totality, to quote one author. It is Death with a capital D. It is "the timeless void that remains when all things have passed away." The Dark is real, oh so real, and real people serve it. They just don't have superpowers. The Tyrant-figure is a figure that keeps, contains, sustains, and freezes. No change, no growth, no transformation, including death, is allowed. That's what Anakin wanted to do to his mother and to Padme, and you people still think he loved them? If that's your idea of love, I pity your friends and family.

Ironically, Luke’s journey, filmed decades before, showed that involved emotionality from a man can lead to ultimate heroism and help take down an Emperor.

Don't make words up, it makes you look like a twat. Luke's journey showed that the path of nonviolence is better than the path of violence. That was the point. Luke was motivated to violence to protect his sister, but that was what ultimately would have doomed the galaxy. How do you not fucking see this?

But Luke wasn’t raised by the Jedi in his formative years, and his training with both Ben Kenobi and Yoda was brief. He was free to access the sentiment that helped guide Darth Vader back to being Anakin Skywalker in the end. No Jedi power could have accomplished that.

That was the ultimate Jedi power. The ultimate power of the Sith is the power to kill. See the difference? I just bet this article's comments are going to have a bunch of idiots shouting "both sides!" about the Jedi and the Sith...

In his success, Luke accomplished a sounder refutation of Jedi philosophy than all of Anakin’s destruction.

He literally proved the Jedi right about knowledge and defense being better tools than aggression.

I've been saying this for years, that the Jedi Order is as flawed as the Sith. The Jedi are an extremist group. They just happen to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Fucking called it.

Because The Jedi were already in power and an elevated position in society. Being hunted to near extinction for thousands of years could put the idea into your head that you have to conquer everything just to survive...

The Sith were hunted because they are the Star Wars equivalent of a terrorist group. They grow stronger the more suffering they propagate. That's why the Dark side was so strong. The Sith are the entire reason for the wars in the saga in the first place. Their ultimate goal is to literally consume everything.

That reminds me...another great piece of media for understanding Star Wars is KoTOR II: The Sith Lords. That game, the six films, and Star Wars book written by Stover are all mandatory if you want to understand the saga. I'd also recommend Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

They helped maintain the Republic status quo. They completely failed to uphold justice and peace for Naboo;

They helped maintain the status quo? That is precisely what the Sith were trying to do, create a status quo with them forever at the top. The Jedi did fail to uphold peace and justice for Naboo, but only for a time, and before that, the Jedi had a thousand years of doing a good job.

Qui Gon Jin is pretty clear that they are not in Naboo to fight the Queen's war.

"I can only protect you; I can't fight a war for you." Qui-Gon's concerns were of a practical nature. Their entire journey was made precisely because Qui-Gon and his apprentice were insufficient to fight a literal war. Jedi are not warriors, they are peacekeepers. They, like the Naboo, had no army.

During the Clone Wars they become military leaders rather than diplomats or peacekeepers

Which was a major step on their path of destruction.

The Jedi are perfectly happy with the power structure when they're at the top of it, but when someone with religious differences is in charge, it's time for an assassination and a coup.

The Jedi were not at the top of anything. When some Jedi suggested they may have to briefly do exactly as you've described, start a coup, the leadership slapped them down and essentially, "we're Jedi, we don't do that." So...what do you think of Operation: Valkyrie? Or do you think Nazi Germany was a-okay? Because that's what the original trilogy was.

So much of the mysticism is Star Wars is taken from Eastern tradition, except for the interpretation of light and dark energy. Eastern tradition says balance between the two is necessary, the idea of light=good and dark=bad is very much a Western/Abrahamic thing.

Nope, Star Wars even took that from Eastern tradition.

But then the prophesy said the chosen one would "restore balance to the Force" - if there's lots of Jedi and they run everything and there's only ever two Sith running around in hiding at any given time, what is the "imbalance" that needs to be fixed?

I wondered if the Jedi got that completely wrong...

"Our ability to use the Force has been diminished." Did no one pay any fucking attention at all when watching the prequels? The Dark side had grown ridiculously strong, eclipsing Jedi senses and reducing their ability to use the Force. The Force had become extremely imbalanced, and needed to be restored. That's from Lucas himself, from the RotS DVD commentary, and it tracks perfectly with events of the film. That's why Obi-Wan said, "you were supposed to bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness![emphasis mine]."

Remember how Yoda was the only Jedi who could do the purple lightning attack? I wonder if Yoda had heretical doubts against the doctrines, and secretly delved into some dark side research behind everyone's back...

Yoda never threw Sith Lightning at anyone, he only reflected it back at people who threw it. Yes, there is a greater symbolic point to be made there. Find it on your own, I'm done with you stupid fucks.

Obligatory archive link;

http://archive.is/LykxJ

This is going to be fun.

'White genocide' is a dogwhistle term used by fascists. By 'genocide' they mean 'non-white people having babies at higher rates than white people' and or 'people having mixed-race babies.' They literally are trying to make it seem like people having non-white or mixed race babies are part of some deliberate plot to rid the world of white people. It's as absurd as it sounds, and you should not treat the term 'white genocide' with any degree of seriousness. It's a boogeyman, nothing more. Don't fall for the fascist rhetoric.

That's an interesting way to refute an idea. Instead of presenting the argument of your hypothetical interlocutor, just lie to people about what they're actually saying, and to give your bullshit strawman some legitimacy, use technical-sounding jargon like "dog-whistle."

For those who don't know what that term means, it's communist for "that word doesn't mean what you say it means, it means what I say it means." That, combined with calling their ideological opponents "fascists" is just how they strawman their opposition and poison the well at the same time. They can't actually bring up the opposing arguments and refute them.

Credit for the following argument goes to Spectemur of KIA; the following passages wrapped in quotes do not come from Gamerghazi, but one of Spectemur's interlocutors;

"The reason why idiotic politicians imports loads of people from the third world is that they will work for pennies, not because they are black or arab, just like in US with mexicans. It's a purely capitalistic/greed move. Corporations profit from this, as they do not have to pay the social cost of immigration."

Right... and in practice will this or will this not lead, irreversibly, to the cultural and demographic marginalization of white people? In practice, will this reality or will this reality not - eventually, with SocJus already pushing the line to the point of overt dehumanization and outright calls for genocide - to those """minorities""" eventually wielding violence against this now minority white population in an expression of ancestral vengence?

You can - correctly, might I add - point to the relatively apolitical and corporatism-mandated motivation behind the actions all you like. That doesn't disprove what the outcomes of these policies will be and you know it.

"It has nothing to do with "white genocide" which is a stupid expression that doesn't apply in Europe, at all."

As a matter of motivation? Correct. As a matter of outcome? Yes, it absolutely does.

"Ironically in some twisted ways, the left is the best ally of globalism and ultra-capitalism because the left cannot understand how importing slave work force is detrimental to locals. But the left has given up on fighting ultra-capitalism a long time ago. It's easier to cry racism whenever somebody point the realities of wage depreciation."

This isn't ironic. This has always been the case. This is a candid statement of fact. The left have been the Stormtroopers of globalist-finance since they first decided to push for women to become strike-breakers who doubled the labor market and smashed the bargaining power of unions.

"The camp that are supposed to be "smarter" have become as intellectually lazy if not more as the ones they keep calling 'idiots'."

No, you're just mistaking "white genocide" as a description for the motivation - and admittedly a great many take that view, so your mistake is understandable - behind mass immigration when it, in point of fact, describes the inevitable outcome of mass immigration. The outcome will be the same whether it's corporate greed or overt racism motivating it.

That you - not unfairly - associate the term genocide with ethnic cleansing doesn't change the facts. Most notable of which being that by the definitions set forth by the United Nations native Europeans and white people broadly are currently being subjected to a slow rolling but nonetheless very real genocide.

It’s also a term used to blur between rational dialogue and the goals of the white supremacists.

No. It's an intentionally jarring and provactive but no less completely accurate term used by white nationalists to - again - accurately describe what white people are currently being subjected to. That you - depending on your circumstances - are either so demoralized and burdened by white guilt that you can't help but feel uncomfortable and squeamish with the reality that white people can have evil systematically visited upon them or you're a non-white person profoundly threatened by rapidly accelerating white racial consciousness does not change the facts on the ground.

Facts can't be misleading. Facts can't 'blur the lines.' Your unwillingness to accept the facts can, however, make it appear that way.

Via the United Nations:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Regarding the bolded: [points c and d in original formatting]

Can it reasonably be said that Western governments - though particularly European governments - understand that the policies they currently have in place are going to inevitably lead to the demographic displacement of native European and white populations? Yes, with certainty. They absolutely know it's happening. Can it reasonably be said that Western governments understand that there is escalating anti-white bigotry held in the hearts of their non-white populations that, should they become a demographic majority, they will act upon violently? Yes, with certainty. They absolutely know this to be the case too. Can it reasonably be said that Western governments - though particularly European governments - understand that their policies of high taxation, run away feminism and economic mismanagement that drive up housing and rental prices directly disincentivize their native populations from procreation while directly - via the wealth redistribution program that is welfare, see taxation - incentivizing these alien populations to procreate? Again, they know this. They know all of this.

Where you quibble is in establishing overt malice. Now, as I've said, I agree with you that there is no genuine hatred for white people driving these policy positions. There is no bigotry fueled vendetta trying to actively kill white people... but there is - nonetheless - a suite of policies in place that will result in the marginalization and destruction of white people that Western governments are knowingly and willfully instituting in full knowledge of those consequences. That is, as per the United Nations, a slow rolling genocide.

I am of the view that doing an action in full knowledge of its outcome qualifies as intent to see that outcome reach fruition even if you're indifferent to that outcome in and of itself.

Thanks again, Spectemur. Not tagging you because you probably can't be assed to bother with this, but if you see this and want to add anything, PM me and I will add (or cut, from whatever ideas are yours) whatever you ask me to. Back to roasting Ghazi.

So, Ghazi, no one who bothers to look into the details and the facts is going to be persuaded by an ideologically-driven far-left rag labeling white genocide as a conspiracy theory. They also won't be persuaded by people shouting thought-terminating cliches like "dog-whistle" and "fascist." If you can't or won't argue your points, or against other peoples', don't post your stupid bullshit in public.

Who is the "they" here, the fascists or George Ciccariello? The fascists are doing it intentionally to be provocative and Ciccariello was right to take the piss out of them.

Yeah, he called what he was doing "satire." Well, who is he satirizing? Does he even know what satire is? Based on how satire actually works, "the holding up of foolishness or vice for the purpose of mockery, to the end that said foolishness or vice would be abandoned," what error or excess is he mocking? Because from a straight reading of the tweet from a satirical point of view, would mean he's mocking people who call for white genocide, not the people who say it's happening. He's a professor. He's not an idiot. He knows what he did, and hiding behind "satire" is not going to deceive people into believing he's not a complete shitstain.

He made a joke intending to rightfully mock the racist conspiracy theory and alt-rightists took it out of that context in an effort to make him look crazy, which liberals are bending over backwards to fall for.

Out of context? The entire message was "All I want for Christmas is white genocide." That was the entirety of the text. What context is missing?

"It's satire." "You're taking it out of context." Favorite excuse of assholes when they get called out on expressing horrible, bigoted views. See, the thing about satire, is you can't be expressing the antithesis of the thesis you're trying to mock. That's not how it works. Instead, you must, as Swift did, demonstrate clearly the position of your interlocutors, and in the demonstration of the position, lies the demonstration of the falsehood or the excess. On that note, this professor can get fucked for calling for white genocide. Nobody, certainly not a professor, should be allowed to advocate for the eradication of an entire demographic without legal action. They so much as say this shit in public, arrest their ass. I propose, modestly of course, that we have a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence for saying shit like "kill all x." I don't care if that x is something as ridiculous as toaster ovens.

It's fun to see all the people condemning him in r/news.

Wonder where all the free speech advocates are? Usually they are the first making a huge stink if it's someone on the right getting in trouble for making edgy jokes.

They're too busy doing their best Gamerghazi and SRS impersonations. You know, Rule 4. Fuck any of you that have ever memed about "freeze peach" and are now bitching about him losing access to his free speech. You don't want to engage on principle, then we will use whatever dirty tactic we have to to beat you guys, and just like you, we're going to completely ignore any appeals to hypocrisy that you make.

I'm touching myself tonight.

Obligatory archive link;

http://archive.is/2HXdx

"Yoda, Leia, pretty much any light side-aligned character in the movie who comments on it says we need to accept the past for what it is, embrace its existence, and learn and grow from it - failure and all."

That is emphatically untrue. From start to almost finish, Luke wants to do the exact same thing you're about to falsely accuse Kylo Ren of doing.

Kylo Ren is the one who's obsessed with destroying the past. "Let the past die, kill it if you have to" is a statement said by the villain who's very much not in his right mind.

That might be what he says, but he is following Sith tradition perfectly, to the letter, regarding Bane's lineage and the Rule of Two, by doing what he is doing. Ultimately it doesn't matter what he says to Rey there in the context of the ideology of the Sith Order, because the goal, converting Rey to the dark side, with the converter at the top of the hierarchy, is always how the Sith have functioned since the time of Bane, and arguably how the Sith were meant to function.

"Yet somehow that's the message so many people have walked away from the movie with."

Because the movie is inherently iconoclastic. It was meant to be that way, that was the message so many took away from it, and that was the message the director meant the audience to take away from it. More on that later. If you don't believe the movie was iconoclastic, you're only paying attention to superficial similarities between The Last Jedi and another certain middle-point of another certain trilogy. Read on if you wish to be enlightened.

It doesn't say "Rey's parents don't matter," it dwells on that topic considerably and gives a possibly untrue answer to it.

Rian Johnson has explicitly confirmed that Kylo Ren was telling the truth, and that the reason to include that scene was to make the point that the commoner, not the royalty unlike in the past films, can be the hero. That is just one of the many, many ways in which the film carries an iconoclastic bent. It's also completely wrong to discard what Kylo says just because "he is the villain." "Villains" can say true things. They can also hold value-judgments that many people agree with and think are good. Just because Kylo Ren says something, doesn't mean the audience should take it as a signal that the idea is wrong just because the mean antagonist said it. No, Kylo saying what he did was nothing more than the continuation of a running theme throughout the movie. The corollary, is that just because a perceived "good guy" says it, doesn't mean it isn't complete and total horseshit. We're about to get to that stuff I said about this movie being iconoclastic.

Then Yoda gives him some hard advice about the fate of the universe no longer depending on him,

Mark Hamill said he fundamentally disagreed with the massive changes they made to Luke's character. After watching the film, I understand why. I mean, ever since the bullshit that was Legacy of the Force I've always known that there are a lot of morons in the Star Wars audience/fandom that don't understand the movies at all, and this just proved it.

Luke never cared about "the fate of the universe." He never cared about whether or not the Jedi succeeded or failed, and he sure as shit didn't believe the Jedi were evil, which is what he actually says in the movie. No, he doesn't use the term "evil" but he does define the Jedi Order that way when he makes his position explicit that the galaxy would be better off without the Jedi than with the Jedi. That was Darth Vader's point of view, not Luke's. In Luke's point of view, the Jedi didn't matter, in and of themselves. What he cared about, was his friends and family. What moved him to action was always love. What gave the screenwriters the right to think that they could write Luke to be such a hateful bastard, when his ultimate realization, boon that the end of his journey earned him, was the knowledge that the path of nonviolence was the better way? And you morons think the theme of this movie is that the past has value? You think the people calling this film iconoclastic as a slur are wrong, in light of all of this? Luke never really cared about right or wrong, not in the face of his friends' sufferings. Anakin was the one who got hung up on good and evil, and that was part of the reason that he did what he did in Revenge of the Sith. Luke was moved by love, not by moral prescription, and as Nietzsche says, "whatever is done for love takes place beyond good and evil." The real Luke, would have had to have been hog-tied to stop him from rushing to the aid of Han and Leia, "fate of the universe" be damned. That was actually the choice Yoda offered Luke. Yoda told Luke, that if Luke chose his friends, the galaxy would be doomed, because Luke would "become an agent of evil."

"If you strike me down in anger, I will always be with you."

That was what Luke said to Kylo, proving that the screenwriters not only don't understand Luke as a person, but that they don't understand the Force. "Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they. Easily they flow." "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." There is a fundamental misconception about the Force among a lot of Star Wars fans, and that is that intent matters to the Force, like the Force is some sort of moralist babysitter that looks into your heart and pins a label of "light" or "dark" on you depending on what's going on inside your head at any given time. It's how the authors of Legacy of the Force got it into their heads that butchering someone with a lightsaber, so long as you weren't angry while you were doing it, could be a light side act. Luke's arc, and what we know of the Force revealed in that arc, is a complete repudiation of everything established in The Empire Strikes Back. "Oh but they saved the books!" They don't even know what they're saving, clearly.

None of you, not a single goddamned one of you, understand the saga, so stop being so goddamned dismissive of the complaints of the people who do.

This is of course all completely irrespective of all the bullshit political content in the film.

http://archive.is/SKYHQ

This is a seriously fucked up question.

Are most guys these days honestly even remotely in favor of feminism?

Well, that's a difficult question to answer, because it's such a heavy generalization. Here's the best answer we have.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/poll/

So, about 33% of men who responded to the survey self-report as being some kind of feminist. 10% identify as "strong feminists." What's really interesting is that only 5% of men identify as anti-feminists. But feminism is totally marginalized, and antifeminism is the establishment, right?

Or at the very least seeing women as human beings like men are?

Not seeing human beings as human beings is a marker of psychopathy, whether those human beings are women or not. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure a large chunk of society doesn't really see men as human beings, including you, because you're asking some seriously discriminatory questions about men. If you reacted with any kind of revulsion when I said your question was fucked up, or that society doesn't see men as human beings, think about the question you just asked about men as a group, you asshole.

Guys are more likely to be seen as humans firstly,

Bullshit. A woman needs help, she gets all the help she could possibly need. A guy tells his friends he needs help, they lose his fucking number.

But I really wonder how receptive guys are at least to the movement's concerns?

The myth of the wage gap? The 1-5 rape myth? Feminist myths in general? Hell, they don't even deserve the title of "myth" because they aren't poetic metaphors that reveal truths about who we are. They're literally just lies used to push agendas.

I'm not even going to bother to ask you about men's issues. I know how you people feel about male genital mutilation, workplace fatalities, the Duluth model, and anti-male family court biases.

Are enough guys receptive to feminism

What is "enough" in this context? Enough for what, to what end? I'm the most extreme anti-feminist I know, and I didn't even bother asking the question if 5% is enough men being anti-feminist, or the 2% of women being anti-feminist, for that matter.

Maybe it is "enough" that people are allowed their positions and their opinions, if not necessarily their own facts? No? No, I thought not. Can't blame me for trying though.

concerning girls "leading guys on", that crap

You think they don't, even unintentionally? No, only guys are allowed to have implicit biases that make them evil bastards.

Now for some of the richer comments.

There are also plenty of guys who make a big show of how supposedly feminist they are, but turn out to treat real women like shit.

Presented without commentary.

As for men who believe in equality for women and support the aims of feminism but aren't personally involved in activism -- good for you, you're a decent person. You shouldn't need to be applauded for that.

(Thinking...)

Hey, that woman over there is making angry noises. I better go see what's going on, try and provide some sort of help or aid.

"Hell ma'am, you seem to be incredibly angry at some sort of grievous injustice; would you like to tell me about it, to the end that I might be able to do something to help?"

"MEN ARE ALL ASSHOLES! THE ONES THAT AREN'T OPEN ABOUT IT PRETEND TO BE "NICE GUYS" BEFORE THEY FUCKING STAB YOU IN THE BACK! I'M SO TIRED OF GETTING BETRAYED!"

Damn, that sounds fucking horrible. Fortunately, I have a simple answer, one that should allay her fears, help her feel better, give her a better, more enjoyable day.

"Yeah, I know, it sucks, a lot of guys can really be bastards when they put their mind to it; but you know what? Not all men are like that. In fact, I am genuinely nice. You won't ever have to worry about any of that stuff around me, I promise you."

"NICE GUY!!! DESTROY HIM!!"

That's how most guys view your complaint, and the surrounding context of that complaint. Here's how I view it.

"MEN ARE ALL ASSHOLES! THE ONES THAT AREN'T OPEN ABOUT IT PRETEND TO BE "NICE GUYS" BEFORE THEY FUCKING STAB YOU IN THE BACK! I'M SO TIRED OF GETTING BETRAYED!"

I am not a shitty person I am not a shitty person I am not a shitty person please don't think of me as a shitty person please don't think of me as a shitty person I will prove to you I am not a shitty person I will prove to you that I'm not a shitty person...

"Yeah, I know, it sucks, a lot of guys can really be bastards when they put their mind to it; but you know what? Not all men are like that. In fact, I am genuinely nice. You won't ever have to worry about any of that stuff around me, I promise you."

"NICE GUY!!! DESTROY HIM!!"

"NO! I'm not a shitty person I swear! I am actually genuinely nice I promise!"

"AARRGHH!"

(Nice guy destroyed)

Elliot Roger had a problem with what some people I guess apparently refer to as "Chads." I don't have a problem with "Chads." I too, have a problem with "nice guys," but not the same problem you do. Nice guys behave the way they do because they are weak-willed. They thrive off the approval of other people, and them being guys, they thrive particularly off the approval of women. You probably never watched Elliot Roger's video diary, but I did. "The only thing that matters in this world is the approval of women." Elliot Roger said that. Elliot Roger, the misogynist. Elliot Roger is what you get when a weak-willed "nice guy" finally cracks, and cracks spectacularly. For the record, he killed more men than women. He was really bad at misogyny.

I say I have a problem with nice guys, but I do also on some level sympathize with them. I don't blame weak people for weakness. Weakness doesn't lessen a person's value as a person, despite the not-so-subtle messages society will send you about men and their value. All nice guys try to do is please women, and they get told what horrible evil people nice guys are. These men are doing what you told them to, and then you're bitching at them for it, and they have no idea why. The poor bastards...

to combat the idea that feminists are only tumblr harpies with dyed blue hair

I'm the kind of anti-feminist who doesn't care about that kind of feminist. I'm a thousand times more afraid, yes, afraid, of organizations like NOW, or how deep feminism is entrenched in academia.

Personally I've always been wary of anyone who seems to avoid the label feminist.

And now you have to be wary of men who take the label "feminist" too. Or, shit, maybe you should be more worried about "the jooz!" because the vast overwhelming majority of men who have been accused in the MeToo campaign have been Jewish.

Men who express feminist sentiments tend to get patted on the back a LOT where a woman would get criticized for saying the same thing.

Isn't that (bullshit) rationale the whole reason why you want men to do the talking and arguing for you, you know, get all chivalrous and shit? And...really? Men would be taken more seriously? Get a man up on stage screaming about being a "nasty woman" and compare his response to Judd who did that. One of those people will not get cheered for, and likely even get shouted down, and it isn't Judd.

I highly disagree with this idea. Not every man gets involved in feminist activism as a tactic to get laid,

Absolutely. Most men do it out of genuine compassion for women. Most men who do that, even if you could prove to them that their compassion would be rewarded with life-ruining betrayal, would likely stay their course, because when it comes to women, they're willing to risk that much. It's why the clause of the chivalric code that reads "revere and defend the honor of women" got such widespread acceptance. Chivalric knights were the male feminists before there were male feminists. Don't believe me? Google The Twelve of England and read.

isn't this exactly what the right does by calling feminist males White Knights? You're shaming them

"She's going to grow up one day and her 'I'm not like other girls' phase will pass and she will be a feminist." Shaming and condescension in a single sentiment.

I'm not shaming anyone, nor did I deny that it is possible for men to be feminist. I'm saying that a feminist man who actually helps the cause should feel no need to proclaim himself a feminist.

Oh but they do feel that need, powerfully. See my above point about the need for approval and acceptance. They're letting you set the rules.

I don't want to say "NOTALLMEN" and try to act like men are too big a group to create generalizations of but at the same time, I think it's worth noting that no group that big is a monolith I think we can broadly look at there being different overlapping swaths which have different relationships to feminism.

I don't want to say "not all women" and try to act like women are too big a group to create generalizations of...but I'm about to anyway.

Men today are less prone to being feminist than women today.

Well, it's certainly what all the available data seems to suggest.

Generally men today are more prone to being feminist than most men in most of the past.

Calling bullshit. Men of the past literally died to avenge insult leveled at women. They're still doing that today, and they get called heroes when they do it.

Our standards for feminism today are higher than what they were in the past,

Not at all. Men could only ever at best be allies, certainly not friends, and definitely never equal partners.

and feminist men today are probably more progressive on gender issues than feminist men of the past

They're not any more progressive than literal chivalric knights.

through raw cultural osmosis, non-feminist men today are probably also at least a little more progressive on gender issues than non-feminist men of the past.

I am an anti-feminist man, and I am progressive on gender issues. You people are the traditionalist-conservatives.

A larger number of men agree with the common tenets of feminism than there are men who would willingly self-identify as feminist.

Yep. It's called gynocentrism.

Most guys Are meh or in favor of it, but hate the name and the loudest members who would drive them away.

You mean like the people who created the Duluth model? The National Organization for Women? Entrenched feminist academia?

I think most guys are generally in favor of feminism if you can get them to understand what feminism actually is.

Well, let's test that out. Let's go read a chunk of the Declaration of Sentiments.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

That is the feminist world-view according to the Declaration of Sentiments. Women are weak and men are bastards. In fact, men are such bastards that they will harm other men, or even allow themselves to be harmed, so long as it maintains the tyranny of women (patriarchy hurts men too) and some women manage to betray their own and be just as evil as men (some women can make patriarchy work for them).

I don't think anyone who understands what feminism really is could tolerate a moment of that misanthropic bullshit.

This is largely why the alt-right have been successful at damaging feminism's image online.

It was documents like the Declaration of Sentiments that made me realize feminism is misanthropic trash, not anything some ass like Richard Spencer said. The alt-right didn't destroy your image. Your image hasn't been destroyed, it was revealed, by your own major documents. If any of you have any remotely compelling argument against anything I've said here, PM me. I'd love to hear from you.

Archive seems to be broken, but the title of the post is exactly as it appears, and should be extremely easy to find for purposes of verification.

Hey, the archive worked as I was still writing this. Cool.

http://archive.is/jhjXH

I have some doubts as to the truthfulness of the OP, but I'm not going to worry too much about that, because I think the argument itself is more important than the potential dishonesty of the arguer.

Hello! I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but if I'm remembering correctly Zoe Quinn used to post here, and honestly wether she reads this or not I feel it needs to be said.

So long as you suck the ideological cock, you can post whatever you like on Ghazi. Their entire original purpose for existence is to mock people on the lower rungs of society so, if you tell them you broke from those people they mock, they will love you. Everyone loves a good redemption story, despite redemption in reality being, as Kreia once put it, "a form of spiritual collapse."

I have been a long time lurker on Reddit, but never made an account until now, so I apologize for that.

As ridiculous as I think it is to apologize for raising awareness of the actions of an abuser, I think apologizing for not making a reddit account and merely reading is far more ridiculous. You hurt no one by not making a reddit account and saying nothing, and you are likely to learn a lot yourself, even if what you learn is only details on the opinions of others.

I also want to preface this by saying that I was in no way, shape, or form justified in my behaviour, and that my explanation of why I joined GamerGate in the first place is meant only so that you can see where I was at during this time, it in no way is meant to excuse me or my actions.

You also weren't unjustified. A curious thing how the double-negative, eliminating each other, can make a proposition and its opposite true at the same time, but not in the same way, despite it technically being the same sentiment. "Just" is a value-judgment. You were only just or unjust in your actions depending on where you stand.

I joined GamerGate around 2 years ago, when I was 15 and very heavily in the closet.

I don't usually read all the way through online content before responding to it. I respond piece-meal, trying to treat it like a conversation rather than a more formal "proposition/rebuttal" debate format. I did with this though, because when I read this line, I couldn't even imagine how it might be germane to the topic. I read your post all the way through, and I still don't see how this point matters.

I hated myself

I do see how this matters though. Self-hatred is a terrifying thing. It is in fact, I would argue, the worst fate to befall any sapient being, to hate oneself, and I can see now why you're apologizing. There are two primary motivations people have for apologizing, and both are acts of bitter life-denial. The first is an apology of convenience. It is a dishonest apology, done to placate people you would rather overcome, but can't. Such an apology is a de facto acknowledgement of other peoples' power over you. The trouble is, no one has any power over you aside from what you grant them. The second, and what I presume your apology stems from, is remorse for your actions. The philosopher Nietzsche said, "Those who despise themselves still esteem themselves as despisers." That's why you're making your apology here. In your estimation, in your esteem, you have done wrong, and you, like a proper Christian, despise your own wrongdoing, just as the Apostle Paul did. In your esteem, you are right to despise your own behavior. Even as you were writing this apology, I don't think you ever stopped hating yourself. I don't think you ever stopped engaging in a continuous act of bitter life-denial.

instead of being open and honest about what I was feeling I instead decided to project it and hate anyone who happened to be in my way. I was vulnerable, highly impressionable, and had axes to grind.

So...what's changed? That's not just a sarcastic quip, I genuinely mean that. Has anything changed, and if so, what, and more to the point, how do you know?

After a long YouTube binge I stumbled upon an anti-feminist YouTuber who was talking about why some girl making videos was wrong.

I have a couple of questions about this point; first, who was the anti-feminist Youtuber in question? Second, was it the making of the videos that was wrong, or the arguments in those videos? Third, if it was the arguments that the anti-feminist said were wrong, was he accurate in his evaluation of those arguments?

This became a running trend with my time in GamerGate. I would be fed a tidbit of information, normally cherry picked, and then I would believe that this was the truth and never do any further research.

Then good fucking riddance. Please, if you are joining the other side and not going the neutral route, please keep that behavior up. You will do far more damage to your own side if you do.

After watching one of these videos I was engrossed, and I must have watched at least 5 or 6 that day. Then I found KiA, and would spend every Sunday browsing through the sub and reading all the comments (never looking at the original article, since that was written by a feminist and feminists are bad dontcha know).

So, you practiced listen and believe, which is perhaps the one cardinal sin in Gamergate. Are you all that surprised to find yourself where you are now, being accepted among people who are just as skeptical as you are?

I became perpetuating. I'd watch videos of feminists getting "rekt", then go on Reddit and read comments about it, then go back to YouTube and repeat the cycle. This wasn't kept to online spaces.

While you were doing that, I, your anti-feminist interlocutor, was reading feminist literature like Toward of a Feminist Theory of the State.

Anytime my sister and I would fight it was about feminists, with my point being they were stupid, and I would consistently tell my friends in the real world about the ethics in game journalism and such.

Interesting. What did your sister have to say about feminist attacks on shared parenting bills? What does your sister think of the Duluth model? What does your sister think about the wage gap?

My first real breakthrough was through reading the Zoe Post. I remember at the time thinking that it seemed kind of sketchy, to be putting someone else's personal conversations with you on the internet but then KiA reminded me that feminists are bad so this one clearly deserved it.

That's interesting. See, I've been around since August 2014, (around KIA specifically) and that wasn't what they told me about the Zoepost, and that certainly wasn't what I took away from that. Quinn is a serial abuser, and in warning the public about her, Gjoni did a public good. As far as I'm concerned, to quote William Munny, "deserve's got nothin' to do with it." That said, Quinn is a serial abuser. After the Zoepost and the evidence therein, I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. This is the person you're apologizing to, a serial abuser, and you're doing so in a place that has mocked one of her abuse victims.

Instead of blindly agreeing, this one took a while to set in. It still did, however, because at that point I still thought I was in the right when it came to social justice.

What did you believe about social justice?

I was so angry at the time, and KiA wasn't really helping this.

It is a healthy thing to get angry at what you perceive to be injustice.

I seriously thought that the world was infested by these evil SJWs, and that I was one of a special few who could see it.

Infested, no, but there are many powerful special interest groups with some degree of control over public policy. NOW, for example, fights all shared parenting bills, referring to father's rights groups as "the pederasts' lobby." The Duluth model was created and implemented by these people. Infested, no, but they certainly do have significant power, and no one can credibly argue otherwise.

Cracks in my belief in KiA started once the dindu memes and Trump supporting came to a head,

What do you mean by "came to a head?" That's an idiom that usually refers to some sort of specific climactic event that was led up to by a sequence of more subtle events. I've been on KIA since 2014. Where was the head you speak of?

Cracks in my belief in KiA started once the dindu memes and Trump supporting came to a head, but I will forever be ashamed that I was once a vocal advocate of the movement.

Why? because a consumer revolt has a nominal amount of Trump supporters and people critical of the free pass hardline leftists are willing to give certain people due to their skin pigment? Even if a majority of GG supporters are also Trump supporters, a claim I'm skeptical of, how does that in any way have any bearing on the truth-value of any other claims made by GG supporters?

My apology is this: though I may never have sent hate to you personally, I was complicit in letting you become harassed by a movement I was apart of. Even if I did not actively attempt to undermine you, I did believe the lies that the spread about you.

What lies? What do you think was said that was untrue?

I clouded my own good sense due to what anonymous people on the internet told me to do, and it lead me to hate a person I had never even met.

No one at KIA ever told you to hate anyone, and I don't believe it's possible to hate someone you've never met. That's why that one musician deconverted so many people from the KKK.

If you're not careful, you're about to let another group of people tell you what to believe. You don't really sound like you're any less impressionable than before, just that you've exchanged one side for the other, and substituted that exchange for the ability to clearly evaluate claims.

That is what happened, for a movement based around harassing her they seemed scared to mention her name a lot, I'm guessing because people clued in.

This is why I think you haven't gained any skepticism at all. You should be asking yourself why, instead you've substituted that process of inquiry with a throwaway guess that you can't test, and you've done so in the face of a perfectly valid hypothesis that is entirely consistent with all available data; GG doesn't care about Quinn, and they see any mentioning of her as derailment from their actual goals. This alternate hypothesis is the actual line of reasoning that GG supporters reached consensus on for why people should stop talking about her. The goal was to not make people famous, to minimize potential harassment, and to treat arguments and ideas, rather than people, hence "literally who." You can't harass someone if you can't find their name, and if you can't find their name, you have to deal with what they say instead of who they are, so when Quinn had to be mentioned at all for context, it was "literally who."

http://archive.is/6pE9A

This is amazing. Ordinarily I rarely post here because Ghazi, in actuality, doesn't say stuff all that often that I would consider absolutely bat-shit insane and stupid all at the same time. But someone finally decided to ask the above question, and then answer it with a bunch of advice that comes straight from the PUA community. This caused some people there to reach the natural and obvious conclusion that talking to people is perfectly appropriate, and others responded like the white woman did to Emmett Till.

Think I'm fucking with you? Let's take a look at some of their greatest hits from this thread, verifiable in the archived link.

Sorry but men don't have the right to talk to women without their consent. I can't believe this has to be said here.

Yeah, and lynch a fucking nigger if he tries, amirite? You people make me sick.

I would absolutely agree that no one has the right to continue talking to someone if they express disinterest or otherwise do not consent to continue the conversation.

As if your supposed opponents have ever said anything to the contrary. Ah, but wait! One intrepid Ghazelle has discovered the root of the problem here, and you won't believe what it is.

The men of Ghazi showed their true colors.

Yes, folks. Suggesting a man not automatically be fucking lynched for talking to a woman he doesn't already know is misogyny. You hear that, men? I'm saying this to the men of Ghazi too; according to the people you want to be "allies" with (very telling that they only take allies and not friends) they believe you don't even have the right to approach them. That's how the ruling class treats the fucking lower class. If this doesn't prove the "if you're ugly, it's creepy, if you're attractive, it's charming," rule, I don't know what does.

Don't worry, misandrists, I'm not letting your opponents off the hook either.

Oh, wow, no. My wife absolutely did not. Thank god I didn't follow your advice and called her anyway. People are shy and awkward. Anxiety exists. Sometimes it is that complicated.

You're lucky...and ignorant. The people you are arguing with, the people who make policy agree with them. For every success story like yours, there's a hundred were women saw the man talking to them as sub-human and decided to use State proxy-violence against him, under literally the exact same justifications you are arguing against in this thread. It's worse than just "it is that complicated," because you can lose that complicated game bad enough that you wind up getting lynched. Or having your entire life publicly dragged through the gutter so you can never have a normal existence again. You don't even have to be accused of rape; you just have to be branded as "creep" for talking to women like the ones you're arguing with while being not hot and rich enough.

Or maybe you're just a dirty man of Ghazi showing his true colors. The handbook says I'm supposed to believe the vagina-haver, so, fuck you.

Did we suddenly switch to a universe where human conversation isn't incredibly awkward with mutual nervousness for both participants?

Nah, it's just that some women believe the entire burden of initiation should be on men. It's just one of many traditionalist notions that feminists have adopted and disguised with obfuscating language.

I'm honestly shocked that you and anyone else on your side didn't fully agree with all the people calling this guy a PUA, because literally nothing he says can't be found on your average PUA site. He didn't "learn social justice jargon" like someone said, he's just a garden-variety PUA. They're good at selling themselves to women, and that's all there is to it. It's not rape, it's not harassment, it's just seduction.

As someone who first approached his girlfriend of almost three years now on the subway, this is terrible advice lol. How do you expect people to meet in public both of them are waiting for the other to to tell them that they're interested?

Congrats on not getting accused of cat-calling and arrested. You're one of the lucky ones. Emmett Till wasn't so lucky.

My wife of many years now wanted to date years before but was too shy to initiate and figured I wasn't interested in the first place.

So this is objectively false and would prevent socially awkward people from having conversations entirely.

That's the goal. Your average, typical woman, especially the ones in the archived thread above, don't want socially awkward, ugly, or poor. All this does is make sexual selection easier.

Absolutely, I don't know why so many people on this sub are getting confused about it. Enthusiastic consent is the new standard, and if someone isn't enthusiastic enough to tell you they're interested, you shouldn't be pursuing them in the first place

So, if a woman approaches me, and I really want to be with her, but I suddenly develop a nervous twitch and my mouth goes dry because she's that damned gorgeous and I can't think straight and she starts applying game to me, is she violating my consent? Or is she trying to draw me up out of my shell because she believes I'm worth it? Seriously you people are fucking scumbags.

To all you people at Ghazi seeing a glimpse of light, to the "men of Ghazi who have shown their true colors," I strongly suggest disassociating from Ghazi, for your own safety. Your defense of PUA tactics and reasoning, because like it or not that is what you were doing, your opponents are right about that, will be remembered by your interlocutors, and they will not fucking hesitate to slap the life-ruining label of "creep" on you for what you've said.

Edit: Hoo boy more fun has happened since. One of the crazier people in that thread posted the following;

I am aware of that, and I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread who agree with me are also aware of that. What I'm saying is that, even without any physical contact, that is still a form sexual harassment. A minor form, but a form nonetheless. It is putting a complete stranger in an uncomfortable social position without their consent for no other reason than because they give you a boner. The actual argument is between people who think that that's borderline predatory behavior that needs to stop and people who think it's perfectly fine to make random women on the street fear for their lives because they turn you on.

Ha, as if women won't get brutally violent upon being rejected, up to and including pulling weapons and calling the police and saying you attacked them. That aside, some responses;

Holy shit, you can not be for real.

Well, let me tell you something, Ghazelle. About a year ago, I would have said the same. I would have said, "this is a false-flag trying to make our enemies look bad, they don't really believe this shit." I have a brother, a rather wise brother who explained why my initial reaction to that kind of rhetoric is wrong, and he used the Islamic State as an example. There are a lot of, shall we call them..."ivory-tower liberals" who believe the Islamic State and their actions are about power politics, and that they aren't religiously motivated, despite captured fighters testifying to the opposite, and the Islamic State's own propaganda outlet explaining Wahhabism and why they practice it. Here's a good rule of thumb; for every instance of caricature you see, you can rest assured that someone out there genuinely believes according to the caricature. The person you're talking to, they are for real. Feminism in particular has proven extremely difficult to satirize for this exact reason, as Medusa Magazine has proved.

Wait, how is human mating initiated in your world? Like if males aren't allowed to express any interest at all, lest they be accused of sexual harassment, what is the alternative?

MGTOW. The Alternative is MGTOW. Now, ask yourself this; if MGTOW fulfills exactly the proscriptions of feminists regarding "cat-calling," why do they hate MGTOW more than any other group in the manosphere? They hate, and I do mean hate, them more than PUAs and MRAs. That said, another alternative is being rich, hot, and not giving a fuck about their rules. Someone with all three of those traits usually winds up getting through this particularly aggressive mode of sexual selection.

Here's some fun stuff;

I don't think anyone but you is talking about unwanted physical contact. Are you not aware of what the term 'hitting on' means? Do you have difficulty with abstract language and social situations?

Well, let's see what your interlocutor has to say to this;

No difficulty here. Whenever I'm being hit on by a woman she usually gets physical with me within the first 30 minutes. That's how she lets me know that she's definitely interested. To me 'hitting on' and 'physical contact' go hand in hand.

I can't put my finger on it...but something about this looks horribly disgusting and wrong and absolutely vile. Hey, wait a sec...

"No difficulty here. Whenever I'm being hit on by a man, he usually gets physical with me within the first 30 minutes. That's how he lets me know that he's definitely interested. To me 'hitting on' and 'physical contact go hand in hand."

Ha! I've found out what's wrong with the above sentiment! The woman here clearly has internalized misogyny! That's why she thinks it's okay for a man to just start touching her within 30 minutes! I do have some questions though. Is there a timeframe when the touching goes from merely "hitting on" to sexual harassment?" Like, how long does a man-er, sorry, I mean woman- have to wait to grope me before it isn't sexual harassment? Is 30 minutes the cut-off point? Is it different if it's a woma-sorry, man- hitting on a woman? Does he have to wait longer than 30 minutes before he can grab her by the pussy? Another big question; is it possible to hit on someone without physical contact? I would imagine the answer is yes for a man-er, I mean woman, but no for a woma- I mean man.

So...do I have to lay it on thicker, or are you fuckers starting to get the point yet?

But I'm the fucking troll who shouldn't be given attention, and you people are clearly the intellectual heavy weights we should look to for going forward in modern sexual politics, you, the people who are arguing for literal sexual harassment as a means of seduction and in the same breath falsely accusing your opponents of doing what you are arguing for! Let this compilation stand as a shrine to feminism's promotion of the demonization, alienation, and sexual assault on, men.

Edit: Oh God the insane bastard actually responded and you won't believe what he said.

I have no problem with this issue. I'm just sharing my dating experiences. Women always initiate the physical contact with me if they are interested. I never initiate physical contact in this way because it could be assault. I don't think this is how it should be. I have just come to expect it because it always happens this way.

Your anecdote succumbs to confirmation bias. You would have no way of knowing if other women were interested in you then, if they didn't initiate physical contact despite being interested, and here, we get to the heart of the matter. Men, don't you dare grab her by the pussy, but women, feel free to vice-grip that cock and not let go, straight from the keyboard of a fucking Ghazelle. Men, if you do it, it's sexual assault, women, if you do it, it's "expressing genuine interest." Seriously, go fuck yourselves, all of you at Ghazi. You are by far the biggest scumbags on reddit; coontown was more wholesome.

You may be right. It's like the old hardline feminist argument "all heterosexual sex is rape" taken to the level of basic conversation.

And not even rape in general, but specifically rape of the woman committed by the man, as you all at Ghazi have so clearly demonstrated. If a woman initiates unwanted contact, physical or otherwise, she's taking on the burden of initiator, which according to feminism, she shouldn't have to do, as per one of your commenters in the archived thread, but if a man does literally the exact same thing, he's committing sexual assault. Even when you guys see a problem, you engage the ol' mental gymnastics to avoid seeing the real root of the problem, that you have pitted men and women against each other, and made men bad and women weak. If what Nietzsche said about "the Christian resolution to see the world as ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad," then the feminist resolution to see women as weak and men as bad has made women weak and men bad.

It looks like we've been noticed, few shitlords who still exist here.

Obligatory archive link.

http://archive.is/r0jk0

I think now more than ever it's important to remind SGS-natives that YOU DO NOT FUCKING COMMENT OR VOTE ON LINKED THREADS HERE, EVER!! Not saying anyone has, I just know how much these people like to abuse accusations. That said, I have some things I'd like to say to the Ghazelles who saw the linked post.

First, some points of agreement;

as an asian, i don't want a hand me down asian bond who'll last for a couple of movies before it's time for a black/female/disabled whatever bond. I'd prefer a new asian character with his/her own backstory, merits and flaws.

I understand. It's one of several reasons why I would have been frothing at the mouth with anger if they decided to change Cyborg's skin pigment. Taking him off the Titans and putting him into Justice League was bad enough; fucking with his race for political points, or to throw people of insert x skin pigment here, is just sick. Again, on the other hand, when people suggested they do the same to white characters solely as an attempt to piss people off, it kind of made me want to fuck with Cyborg's race to piss these people off. Why? Nothing to do with race; one just has to be a real bastard to screw with someone else's favorite shit just to make them angry, the kind of bastard who deserves to have their own shit turned back on them. Just so it's not ambiguous, I fully acknowledge that that is not you, and you are a cool, level-headed individual for taking the approach you're taking. Thank you, and again, I understand. If it were me, I wouldn't want hand-me-downs either.

that being said, most of what the other guy rambled on about was just straight up wrong and/or self contradictory.

You're welcome to come here and make an argument. As far as I'm concerned, the challenge is still open. I'm leaving my account under the proverbial sword of the only samurai that could look Musashi in the face here. Any challenge, any time, you manage to prove my original claims in the previous thread wrong, I will delete this reddit account and not make another one.

While there are exceptions, most Star Wars fans aren't particularly interested in the New Jedi Order to begin with. And, even then, speaking as someone who likes those books, and actually enjoys the Yuuzhan Vong as villains, I can honestly say I didn't care in the slightest about that particular retcon.

It's got nothing to do with the Vong as villains, and everything to do with Jacen Solo and the nature of the Force as it is portrayed in the movies. And just because you personally didn't get caught up in the controversy doesn't mean it wasn't fucking massive. It was worse than Traviss and her "talifan" and "spoon-bender" bullshit, and that got her work retconned out of the canon and caused her to stop writing Star Wars.

I check my posts semi-regularly so I will see responses, and I will respond to them. I will respond to courtesy with courtesy, trolling with insults, and insults with grievous mockery.

Obligatory archive link:

http://archive.is/KQZz8

Well, this is an interesting one. The little mini-essay that is the linked OP contains a lot of typical bullshit, but what's really astounding in this case, are the comments.

All white people are racist and, far from absolving them, this places an urgent burden on each and all.

Oh, what an unfortunately hilarious choice of words.

Take up the White Man’s burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go send your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need

From Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's Burden. To your claim that white people have a burden regarding non-white people, I will say this, as the original, unnamed poet did:

We’ve taken up the white man’s burden

Of ebony and brown;

Now will you tell us, Rudyard

How we may put it down?

Anyone who thinks this statement is wrong, or that it needs further qualification that could weaken our understanding of it, or that it makes “racism” a powerless word: find some place else to debate it.

Welcome to Shit Ghazi Says, you pinko commie fuck. Not that you'll ever see this because you're all too afraid to bring your easily-refutable ideas to the debate table and it is your ideas, not the truth, that you are interested in advancing, but either way, I win.

If your first reaction is ever to deny an accusation of racism rather than listen and learn, this is the wrong sub.

That's another reason why we're going to win. No, this is not a repeat of the previous idea I just expressed regarding your inability to debate, it's because we're not the fucking Sith. We don't expect people on our side to die (or lose their jobs or reputations) for the sake of ideological purity. Unlike you, we don't shoot our wounded.

We’ve had a strong public understanding of how bias affects us all at least as far back as “The Doll Test” made famous in Brown v. Board of Education. Decades of research since have developed our knowledge in this field. Implicit bias tests are a well-known modern example, and the body of research is far stronger than what trickles into pop culture.

Ah, this is nothing more than a response to that fact-checking done on implicit bias testing recently, isn't it? For the record, there is no compelling evidence that implicit bias exists, despite what this fuckwad says.

It would also be true to say “all people are biased.” True in the same way that “all people are dying” would be a true reply to an LGBT activist in the 80s who dared to say “HIV/AIDS patients are dying.” Truly a distraction from a more urgent issue that deserves separate consideration.

Men are 93% of workplace fatalities.

"Don't confuse suffering with oppression. Everyone suffers, it's universal."

-- A cleaned-up quote from a male feminist caught on video.

So, which one of you is right, and which one of you is wrong? Because you're arguing among yourselves again, and expecting me to agree with and support both positions at the same time.

We all absorb society’s toxic programming,

Whoa, that's a little too red-pilled for the people you're talking to. So...how much toxic programming have you absorbed about the evils of male sexuality and the hypoagency of women?

but the US sheriff running self-described concentration camps and the US president pardoning him for related charges are not people of color who failed the doll test in Brown.

You realized that guy was literally sentenced without a trial, right? Doesn't matter, as long as we get to punish people for being racists. Are you surprised that white people will fight to escape that label? More on that later.

In a discussion about white racism, raising the “everyone does it” flag is misleading at best, almost always derailing, and weakens the critical efforts of anti-racism.

You mean being critical of your position weakens your position? I wonder why. It's not just that everyone does it, either. It's that everyone, including white people, and these days especially white people, suffer at the hands of institutionalized discrimination. There are no more barriers to entry for black people, and laws that were put in place to deal with those barriers are now working against white people.

Decent white people (the ones we’ll worry about for now) make varying efforts to end racism and never wanted to benefit from their privilege.

This is why they want you to feel guilty, and see, they can't even stop themselves from the shaming tactics among their own. You're not a decent person if you're white and you disagree with them on this point. You're not a decent white person if you don't feel some kind of guilt for being born the way you were born. Sick, fucking, bastards.

Some think it is unfair or devalues the word’s meaning to call them “racist.” It’s true that there’s an important difference between that kind of person and a Trump supporter or other Nazis.

"Or other Nazis?" Well, shit. I guess I'm a Nazi now. Here's hoping I can stave off the inevitable purity spiral after the alt-right starts a fucking fire, you colossal morons...

We won’t end racism, though, if we fail to acknowledge its more “decent” formulations.

You won't end racism, period. Ever. You can't make people not think certain thoughts. There will always be white people who hate anyone who isn't white. There will always be black people who hate white people. Of course, the previous sentence has you all in a tizzy, and it's because you don't give a shit about racism, only about the thoughts and actions of a certain race.

Otherwise decent people who shy away from this label lose out on its insights and its demands.

"Brother I say you are righteous in your own eyes but in the eyes of God you are a SINNER and unless you accept the lord JAY-SUS into your heart your are hellbound!"

I have to give you guys credit. A few years ago, this would have worked on me. I, on some level, still cared about being a decent person. Now, I don't. Do you have any idea how good it feels to be released, liberated, from all guilt and shame? Thanks Nietzsche. If there is any evangelism I would ever engage in, it would be that, the kind that sets people free from guilt and shame.

Just what are decent white people to do then?

Put that burden down. Let go of the charge that you must be a "decent" entity and instead just be you, flaws and all.

Acknowledging one’s own racism isn’t about shame or self-flagellation

Then why do black people act like I've just insulted them when I accuse them of racism? Why do you respond as though you've been insulted when I say I think you're the ones engaging in discriminatory practices?

responses that unduly elevate white people and their experiences.

Otherwise decent people who shy away from this label lose out on its insights and its demands.

Acknowledging one’s own racism isn’t about shame or self-flagellation, responses that unduly elevate white people and their experiences.

Otherwise decent people who shy away from this label lose out on its insights and its demands.

So, if I, as a white person, accept the label of racist, I gain insights, and have a burden of responsibility, that no non-white will gain? If we are equal in all other ways, doesn't that make me special? Doesn't that exactly elevate white people and their experiences? Sargon was right about you guys. You are in fact white supremacists, you're just guilty about it. It's why every single line of your ideology dovetails so well with Kipling's poem, and why the response to that poem is so perfectly against your ideology.

White people will have to get in line and follow the march for racial equality, because the question isn’t answered, the solution isn’t here yet.

I agree. The solution will be people like you being pushed to the margins of society, warming yourselves by the same sputtering fire that the KKK sits next to.

Even the most altruistic white advocate for racial justice or any cause stops advocating somewhere. There’s no easy answer for how much of ourselves to give to our causes, but for white people this is a cause that they give to, while for minorities it is a life that they experience.

A few days ago, I watched a black person who literally just got out of jail, physically assault someone just for being white, and the white guy did sweet fuck all while he was getting hit because he didn't want to be accused of being racist. To my knowledge, nothing happened to the black guy. Some friend of his showed up to pick him up, and they left. Now there is a violent criminal out on the street, and he got a free pass because of his black skin.

Now...is he an anomaly in the system? If he is, you have to be able to explain the outlier. If you can't explain why that outlier is an outlier, THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR MODEL!!!

White racism is not over until people no longer have to make a daily decision to put racial justice down and prioritize something else, promising to come back to it later.

Like I said, you people only care about white racism, not black racism, despite black racism doing measurable damage in this country. Go fuck yourselves.

Do not debate or undermine the existence or urgency of white racism.

The truth is anti-fragile. It grows in strength from attempted falsification. If your position was true, you'd welcome the strengthening of it via debate.

Debate as appropriate what solutions should look like.

Okay. You and yours living the same life that the KKK does. You having their same level of reach.

But no self-pity about how white racism is a challenge for otherwise decent white folk.

I love how you have to tell people this, and not to feel shame at the word "racist." You have to know that it's been made a shameful thing, by you guys. It's become like what "blasphemer" was a thousand years ago.

Now for the comments.

Ok then. Trying to convince everyday white people that they are racists WILL NEVER WORK. The word has too much power. Careers, friendships and reputations are ruined over people being called racists. The moment you call white folk racists you can forget that they will do anything productive. Instead all of their attention will go to escaping the label.

Over a hundred upvotes. The consensus of that sub is that this is a true statement. They know "racist" has that kind if power, is that shameful, and is that damaging, and if any of them had an ounce of fortitude, they would admit that they are the reason for that state of affairs. Here's the rest of the comment.

So instead maybe just say "Fight racism!" instead of "You're racist and there is nothing you can do about it because of your skin color...but somehow you need to fight racism." If you go for the second route, you're just wasting your time.

You're not wrong, but of course if you just say "fight racism," they're going to think you're using the vanilla definition of the word "racism" and will therefore flip their shit when you start acting like the flaming racists you are. You need to prime people first by giving them your horseshit redefinition of racism. You need to be able to attach that stigma to something else in order to appeal to peoples' senses of decency to push them into action. The advice you're giving, is actually bad advice for your own cause, but it is an honest assessment of reality.

Definitely. I get what people mean by "all white people are racists" because I have a passable understanding of social justice issues. An average person who's only just about to be introduced to these things will think you just hate white people if you say this and that all the stereotypes about 'teh essjews' were right. And that's not a desirable outcome - it doesn't matter if that person might then understand this error 3 years down the line, harm has still been done.

Well that's interesting because I'm pretty deep into this shit now and I still think all the stereotypes about you fuckers are true.

I don't get why certain social justice [insert RPG class of your choice here]

I've always hated this gag. You're called warriors because you fight with people, and even if you wanted to give some validity to your ridiculousness of thinking of yourselves as RPG heroes, too many RPGs these days are all about fighting, as far as class abilities go. It's why the community has made a distinction between "combat" and "RP," as if the way in which a character engages in violence isn't part of that character's role.

are so unwilling to compromise a tiny bit about word choice in order to be better understood.

It's because they are perfectly understood, and any compromise waters down their message, and they know this. If I believed what they believed, I wouldn't compromise on that point either. It's like the difference between "climate change," and "global warming." Yes, the climate is changing, but the actual problem is that the planet is heating up.

It's not even sacrificing principles, just learning a new way to express the sentiment.

The sentiment is the principle. This is fucking rich coming from people who screech all the day long about the words people use.

One could just as easily say "all white people benefit from systemic racism to some degree, however minor" (although maybe you shouldn't start a conversation with a potential social justice recruit with this point)

If I was a potential recruit, and you didn't start with this, and I found out later this was what you thought, I'd accuse you of lying to me. This is how cults work. They save their crazier shit for when someone is at a greater level of indoctrination.

This necessity is only presented for white people and I don't agree that they need to be coddled.

I agree. Don't coddle me. If I found out you coddled me, I'm going to accuse you of lying. I'd rather you put your bullshit out on display like this.

Ehhhh that isn't true. Women are taught from birth to coddle men in this exact way. Hell, we even call misogyny "traditional gender roles" so as to make it seem respectable and not hurt their feelings. Imagine if people insisted you call white supremacy "traditional racial roles".

This is from one of their mods. It's nice of them to admit they don't give a shit about the things that are actually definable as traditional gender roles. Let's dispense with the idea that patriarchy hurts men too, even some feminists have grown tired of that lie. I know I sure as shit have. I'd rather you fuckers just say what you mean because it makes you that much easier to refute.

It's been a while since I've seen a Ghazi post basically asking, "how can we muddy the message to make it more likely people will accept our insane bullshit?"

Like, a massive core of the movement seems to be an unwillingness to question the way society works. It's utterly anti-intellectual. For all the theories and ideas behind feminism, all anti-feminism has is saying "you're wrong". All they can do is make stupid, often ad hominem jokes at feminism's expense, rather than actually bothering to counteract. In my view, any movement that fails to push an idea is cancerous, anti-feminism is a tumor in the mind of mankind, it refuses intellect, in my mind, it is utterly disgusting.

Okay Ghazi, here I am. I'm going to throw you one that should be super fucking easy. I doubt any of you there know more about feminist theory than I do, but I'm just going to work from the assumption that you actually do know more about feminist theory than me, and ask you a ridiculously easy, non-rhetorical question that I actually want you to answer;

Is patriarchy theory an accurate model of reality? Why/Why not?

You want to whine about anti-intellectualism, I bet none of you can defend an affirmative answer to that question. If you do, I will delete this reddit account and not make a new one. This is the only reddit account I have. You people are always bitching about how reddit is a hive of scum and villainy, so here's some stakes; successfully answer and defend the affirmative, and you can make reddit a better place in your eyes.

I notice this a lot in conservative arguments, including anti-feminist ones, often in the form of an unwillingness to look beyond an obvious cause.

Uh huh. This should be good.

For example. We say women earn 30% more, they say "Well they pick jobs that earn less and have kids." and then FULL STOP.

That's a very interesting argument you've constructed. I think it's the first time I've ever seen it, despite all the time I spend in anti-feminist circles, you fucking liar.

They don't want to dig DEEPER into questions like "Okay, so WHY do they take jobs that earn less,

Because on average, women are more interested in those fields than men are, as per a wealth of research done on this subject. What, you're about to say the Damore memo was bullshit? It wasn't, all the sources for it were pulled by the disingenuous assholes who wrote hit-pieces on it. Google "gender equality paradox" and you will find the evidence. Female infants will almost categorically spend more time looking at a face than a mechanical object, vice versa for male infants.

Oh, here's the entire memo.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f

why do those jobs earn less?

Because the people who pay those positions pay out what they believe those positions are worth. You can't expect kindergarten teachers to make as much as physical chemists, one market is saturated, the other isn't. On the other hand, men have a really hard time getting into early childhood education because for some reason, the people responsible for hiring people into those positions tend to see men as dangerous child rapists.

Whose fucking fault do you think that is? Oh, right, it's men's fault. How could I fucking forget. All roads lead to misogyny.

Hey, why don't more women become coal miners, loggers, construction workers, and sewer workers? Those jobs are overwhelmingly male-dominated. Oh, those jobs are unpleasant. More female CEOs!

Why do women earn less for having kids while men don't?"

Nobody earns money for having kids. Well, that's not entirely true. It's much easier to get government aid if you're a single mother than a single father. I'm just going to pretend you meant to word that question in a better way you did and answer the better-worded question that you didn't write.

Because men are biologically programmed to take the most high-paying jobs they can get to provide the best for their families. I would also argue they are socialized to do so as well, but that is basically how our species survived to become the dominant species on the planet. When a man has a child, they have an instinct to provide. That's just how it is. That's biology. I'm not saying biology is defensible, but you asked why. That's why.

"But women move into other positions so then people start paying less because they don't value women's work!"

Say it. I dare you. Use that argument I just put in quotes, like I haven't heard that tripe a million times before.

And if any of you want to whine about my adversarial tone, I'm going to point to all the insulting bullshit you said in that thread and say "geese and ganders, fuckers."

https://web.archive.org/web/20171102024536/https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/7a0qjz/twitter_suspended_me_for_trolling_white/

Obligatory archive link.

The "centrist" and "as liberal as they come, but" Free Speech Warriors of Reddit will bring this up any moment now!

Yeah, we're so keen to keep this shit quiet that Sargon of Akkad did an entire fucking video about it, and you guys were even talking about that video when it came out. Do you just have shit attention spans?

https://web.archive.org/web/20171102024904/https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/7a3vwn/what_experts_know_about_men_who_rape//

Interesting parallel with the very commonly held belief in the PUA/TRP/RotK/Incel/Elliot Roger subsection of the manosphere

Elliot Rodger hated men. He killed more men that he killed women, said the only thing that mattered in this world was "female approval," and blamed PUAs!!! for "damaging the relationships between men and women." He wasn't a PUA, he hated PUAs. He wasn't an MRA, the closest thing he was to any of those was an incel, and you don't see incels fucking killing people. If anything, his psych profile fit feminism way more than it fit anything related to the manosphere.

Everybody knows rape is something women made up for attention.

More than 2%-8% of the time, and for a variety of reasons including what you just said.