Other Forums Containment Thread

[Boredfrom]

The discourse about STD is getting weird. A few years ago RE or old Gaf were claiming that getting HIV was not a big deal and was bigotry claiming otherwise.

I get it in the sense on how manipulative was the great AIDS scare from the 90’s, but pretending that this stuff is not a big deal not blows my mind.

[Taco Bell Tower]

Someone calling out Schreier:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/therealinsider-appears-to-be-youtuber-dan-allen-gaming.634064/page-5#post-93571052

I'll say it, it seems like there's a double standard for Jason. He's carved out a lane for himself where he doesn't have to hide but is safe to "report" on leaks and "confirm" them based on his "sources" but those very same leakers are clout-chasers like Dan Allen and he's effectively torching this guy for helping him do his job because he made a personal point to have him correct himself. Not excusing Dan's shitty behaviour but Jason benefits from people like him and gets special treatment because we all love leaks at the end of the day and Jason is the it guy

Schreier's super protected on ERA, so I wouldn't be surprised if this dude gets popped for "attacking a fellow user" or something like that.

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

This is some petty, immature shit from Schreier- he went after the guy because he got called out for denying some Assassins Creed stuff when it was leaked. It's embarrassing garbage from both of them, but the other is just some streamer?  Schreier should know better.

Game "journalists"
 

Hol up

Jason's a dad?   

[benjipwns]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/shawn-layden-has-joined-tencent-games-as-a-strategic-advisor.634094/#post-93574505

User Banned (2 Weeks): Sinophobia; Conflating a Business with a Government

I kinda liked him, sad to see him sell out for CCP cash.

The staff of ResetERA.com are aware that China claims to be a communist country right?

[Propagandhim]

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/for-gen-z-tiktok-is-the-new-search-engine.633536/

Entrement is such an idiot if he thinks this is not concerning at all.

Pretty sure that applies to everything on the internet.

How you cut through the crap is what matters, and how easy the search engine makes it. TikTok could certainly do a lot to make that part better and to protect users from misinformation, but I can totally understand why it's becoming a preferred method for some people.

But you fuckers don’t do that…

https://www.resetera.com/threads/doctor-warns-against-cooking-chicken-in-nyquil-trend.634331/

[benjipwns]

Interesting to come across people (mostly of the self-proclaimed left) who clearly saw the problem even before Gamergate Changed Everything™ by first inventing fascism:

Flavia Dzodan wrote a piece for Tiger Beatdown dedicated to skewering the “toxic” nature of “the collective dance commonly known in blogging as the ‘call outs.’”  The problem with call-out culture, she wrote, is that it “has developed as a tool to legitimize aggression and rhetoric [sic] violence.”

For while, “on the surface,” call-outs are  “seemingly positive” and “done ‘for good,’” they are not, she suggested, mere instruments of justice. Rather, they need to be understood in the context of a culture in thrall to the cruel theatre of reality television, as a “performative” spectacle of ritual blood-letting fashioned “for an audience” and intended “more often that not … to make the one initiating the call out feel good, more righteous, more indignant, a ‘better person’.”

Attacking the person rather than the action

This is spectacularly common, and, I suspect, exacerbated by the rigid sediment of a structural analysis which collapses social identity and political position. From there, it’s a short walk to, ‘They said a fillintheblank-ist thing because people like them are fillintheblank-ists.”

But things are not that simple. We all live under conditions of structural domination. Every one of us has internalized views and assumptions that serve to perpetuate that system. That someone said something which represents, say, a damaging exclusion, doesn’t tell you they are a vile bigot in the essence of their being, or that they are a dues-paying agent of the kyriarchy.  And it is, at best, uncharitable to suggest that it does. And that goes doubly for extrapolating directing from a particular event to a totalizing dismissal ending in –phobe.[5]

Both these types of misrepresentation fall squarely under the rubric of ‘engaging in bad faith.’ It is true that intention isn’t magic. At least, it is true that whether I intended to say a fillintheblank-ist thing doesn’t determine whether it is fillintheblank-ist  (although it’s not clear that intensity of pile-on is what determines it either). But it is one thing to argue that a specific intention does not define a particular act, and quite another to refuse to credit the person you are addressing with good intention in general.

What concerns me is that the hand-waving of unjust representation takes place against a background assumption that certain people – by virtue of their (often reductively ascribed) social privilege and/or platform – are incapable of a genuine concern with justice[6], and as such, don’t deserve to be treated justly. Not only is this a bleak, and indeed, thoroughly neo-liberal,[7] view of human nature, it presents us with something of a paradox.

On the one hand, the call-out justifies itself by posing as an educative intervention performed in good faith. (And, just to be abundantly clear, I have seen examples where it is just that.) On the other, the tendency to misrepresent people, and invoke totalizing slurs – often accompanied by violent invective – suggests that there is, actually, no assumption of good faith on the part of the call-outers.

And, to return to our starting point, this raises a question about the call-out’s purported function. Because why on earth would you bother telling someone they have done something harmful, if you are proceeding from the assumptions that people-like-them don’t care about doing harm?

More than one answer presents itself, but Flavia Dzodan’s observations about performativity are pertinent to several of them. Yes, there are examples of good-faith call-outs which are genuinely intended to challenge or inform, but they are relatively rare. More often than not, the call-out is performed for an audience, and is undertaken for the benefit of the person or persons performing it.

As such, it may serve several functions. It demonstrates your political credentials, and (for many white women) launders your privilege. It raises your profile, and nets you allies and followers. It bestows the sweet sense of having-right on your side, of bravely battling against the massed forces of domination and injustice. And, perhaps above all – it’s a great way of dumping all your aggression, and usefully comes with a political narrative that exculpates you from taking any responsibility for that.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

And it’s not OK for several reasons. It’s not OK because the person you are raging at is not the source of your oppression. Your oppression is systemic, and individuals are, at worst, symptoms, and indeed, frequently being used as proxies for that system. When a woman is expected to gracefully absorb a long stream of invective, she is being asked to do so, not as a person but as a cipher.

Because of a tweet, or a misplaced phrase, because she asked the wrong person the wrong question, or tried to defend someone, or said something flippant, or challenged the political point of one white-woman calling another white-woman ‘scum,’ she is summarily elected as the representative of an entire structure of domination. She is no longer herself, but today’s chosen instantiation of white-cis-liberal-middle-class-capitalist-colonial-ableist-whorephobic-(and probably, indeed, patriarchal)-supremacy. [9]

Not only is this monolithic system not actually a monolith – another representational error because it is also, well, intersecting – but deciding you are divine violence, and taking it upon yourself to deliver rhetorical punishment to someone on the basis that they are this system, is dehumanization and exemplary bad-faith. And the recent prevalence of tweets mocking women’s ‘sadfeelz’ and ‘White Tears’™ makes it pretty apparent that dehumanizing white feminist women because they have been deemed emissaries of evil is now considered at the very least acceptable, and indeed, by some, a thoroughgoing act of justice.

But people are not structures. They might say things that support structures, and they may well, often by accident rather than design, benefit from how those structures work. And that should, indeed, must, be incessantly critiqued. But individual people – with all their mess, and nuance, and strength, and vulnerability – are not structures. And even if left-wing-white-feminist women really were the best possible proxy for patriarchal-colonial-capitalist-white-supremacist domination, taking to Twitter to lob rhetorical Molotov cocktails at them is not smashing the kyriarchy, it’s being verbally violent to another person.

And it is a “toxic and destructive phenomenon” that seems impossible to resist. As Dzodan noted, call-out culture is “insidious” because “who would dare to say something…when it is supposedly done against oppression?” As was evident from responses to the Goldberg piece, if the call-out is a tool of social justice, then anyone who questions it can only be concerned with strengthening the status quo. And so, shielded by this impervious defense, the call-out adopts a pose of ethical invulnerability, and is free to carry out its righteous work.

The flaw in this defense is, however, that while the call-out claims to work for justice, it is often, in itself, unjust. And while it styles itself an intervention aimed at education, and claims to have engaged its interlocutor in good faith, in many ways, as I have shown, this is a lie. The disquiet many feminists express towards the call out, is animated, not by their desire to keep a grip on power, but by their frustration at repeatedly engaging in an environment pervaded by bad faith. And by the futility of trying to resist.

Because the call-out is a vicious circle. It selects its target as a proxy of ‘The Oppressor,’ and when its bad-faith overture is greeted as precisely what it is, it parades this lack of receptivity as evidence of the very pre-supposition with which it started. It is a snare. A game of ‘Gotcha!’ A way of whipping-up endless vortices of self-perpetuating outrage. It is poisonous, and corrosive, and damaging, both to individuals and to the very possibility of genuine political communication across our differences.

And what it isn’t – when it piles into an encounter, stoked by certainty and suppositions while dressed up, disingenuously, in the garb of good faith, careless, and indeed, often, reveling, in any harm that it might do – is an instrument of justice.

the injunction against tone-policing derives from an important insight. People who experience oppression are angry, and their anger is both legitimate and politically important. Moreover, they are often subject to cultural stereotypes which serve to restrict their ability to assume and express that anger, and in the interests of justice, this needs to be resisted.

At some point however, the tone argument assumed a law-like status which, Cross writes, can “be waved at will in any discussion to absolve one of responsibility” and contributes to what she beautifully describes as “a rapidly oxidizing corrosion” of political discourse.  The ethics of expressing anger are, indeed, challenging. On the one hand it is – often literally – vital, to affirm that anger is legitimate, and recognize that people’s wellbeing and survival depends on channeling it away from themselves and towards the structures of their oppression. But it doesn’t follow from this that every expression of legitimate anger is itself legitimate.

This erasure of ethics by politics is well illustrated in Kenzo Shibata’s response to Goldberg. She writes, “The real irony I read in her piece is that Goldberg, using her mainstream-ish platform, labels women without a major platform as “bullies.’ Bullying requires punching-down.” This argument relies on the conflation of oppression (structural/political) with bullying (interpersonal/ethical). It is not, by definition possible for a person with less structural power to oppress someone with more structural power – because the power determining their relation is systemic not personal, and cannot be changed within any given encounter, although it make be invoked or off-set. But structural power is not the only type of power. In an interpersonal encounter, power may also be distributed by the willingness or ability of one party to use some type of rhetorical, psychological or physical violence against another. This is what is involved in bullying and/or abuse. It may well be true that it is easier for people with more structural power to bully people with less structural power (as they then have both structural and interpersonal violence at their command), but it is not true that is impossible for someone with less structural power to bully someone with more. As Flavia Dzodan notes, “What is rarely pointed out is that a person can be at once oppressed and an abuser.” A far more honest way of having this conversation would be to ask the question, ‘is it politically justified for people with less structural power to invoke some form of interpersonal violence against people with more structural power?’ That is something we can talk – and may very well disagree – about. But to pretend there is no genuine ethical question here is a smokescreen.

This is the end-point of a too-rigid application of identity politics. Yes, my social position and lived experience are likely to significantly inflect my political understanding, but it does not determine it. People are capable of acts of imagination and empathy, and only a social-Darwinist-come-neo-classical economist would seriously argue that all human beings act only out of brutal self-interest.

Secondly, anyone who criticizes the practices of Intersectional Feminism and happens to be white, is deemed, by default, a ‘white feminist,’ without any knowledge of their social position or views. There is a totalitarian logic at work here: 1. People’s views are entirely determined by their social position. 2. IF represents ‘the oppressed’ and white feminism represents ‘the oppressor’. 3. Your social position can therefore be deduced from whether you espouse or criticize the beliefs and the practices of intersectional feminism 4. The best way to demonstrate you are not ‘the oppressor’ (perhaps the only way if you’re white) is to regularly denounce and attack people identified as being so. 5. If you think that’s kind of shitty, it’s because you are the oppressor.

Hence, by writing this piece, I become a de facto ‘white feminist’ – even though I am a Marxist-anarchist who thinks Sheryl Sandberg sucks. Indeed, as tends to be a problem with excessively rigid identity-politics, Twitter intersectionality functions with an incredibly reductive account of the relationship between social position and political principle (Marx, Engels, Lenin and Guevara were middle-class, people!), and also, a very reductive vision of its ‘other,’ having, as far as I can tell, no account of the mechanism of kyriarchy beyond amorphous ‘domination’. The fact of this imprecision, and the rapidity and vehemence with which the label ‘white feminist’ – and its homonyms – are dispensed, raises the suspicion that, as a political force, twitter feminism is above all animated by the impulse to expel negativity onto its other. For all its laudable political principles, in practice, intersectional feminism is as ‘you’re either with us or against us’ as neo-conservatism.

[close]

[BIONIC]

I’m not reading a word of that lmao

[Taco Bell Tower]

Just click the spoiler, 4head

[benjipwns]

I’m not reading a word of that lmao

Of course an oppressor wouldn't read the words of the marginalized.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's okay, she's a white woman so not really marginalized. Remember other white women voted for Trump, so all white women are complicit.

[close]

Just click the spoiler, 4head

I fucked up the spoiler when I first posted so he might have seen all of it.

[wsippel]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/former-employee-of-shift-up-stellar-blade-accuses-the-company-of-harassing-her-and-deleting-her-work-for-supporting-a-feminist-hashtag-online.633371/page-5#post-93497600

Kingdom Key Thanks for posting those tweets that they liked. I want to put a focus on one of them specifically.

https://twitter.com/kukuruyo/status/1569828688996311041?s=46&t=pMoBJFz3_1US37jC9-mcUw

It isn't just the awful artwork that makes this bad.

The tweet itself -- the "screeching" comment -- is a bigoted meme that makes fun of autistic people, as in "you SJWs complaining about sexualizing women are autistic."

And the developer of this game liked it.

That's not even going into the fact that if you go to that person's Twitter, it's a NSFW hentai artist and one of their most recent drawings is of a woman in a bikini, with a gag in her mouth, about to be hanged and killed.

This developer is reprehensible and we really need to see some larger outlets putting a focus on this. Not sure if jschreier or anyone else would want to look into the harassment described in the OP and the clearly gross nature surrounding this developer is but I'm really hoping someone does.

Sony should not be working with them. Simple as that.

Macca, this might be worth adding to the OP to really highlight how problematic this developer/game is.)

............WHAT. THE. HELL?!?!?!

the game's community is gonna have a nazi problem, that's for sure.

good luck, silly devs. you're gonna need it, you adorable little rascals.

 

The former ShiftUp employee complaining about sexism was their resident Fujoshi-bait artist on Destiny Child, drawing mostly pretty boys in skimpy outfits, shotas and dominas, by the way. Also draws BL stuff. She clearly never had a problem with sexualized characters - as long as they were male.

Thanks for the added context. It's pure

It's even more funny. ShiftUp was founded by character designer Kim Hyung-Tae and music producer ESTi, and mostly consists of former Team Bloodlust members (who did Blade & Soul for NCSoft), especially fellow character designers kkuem and Hyulla. Their debut game was Destiny Child, which runs on pure cheesecake and was a huge success, apparently. It's also a shockingly fair gacha game, but that's not really the point. Anyway, when Destiny Child took off and established a baseline, the team split up. Hyulla started working on the upcoming Nikke, and never grew tired of defending that game's over-the-top butt jiggle physics, while Kim Hyung-Tae started working on their magnum opus, Project Eve, aka Stellar Blade. As far as I'm aware, his wife kkuem, an accomplished character designer in her own right and somewhat famous cosplayer, took over Destiny Child. Considering the artist complaining about sexism was part of the Destiny Child team, and looking at the timeline, her boss was probably also a woman. Not saying sexism against women in a female-led team never happens, but I think that, in combination with her "speciality", it's worth taking into account.

[Lonewulfeus]

Interesting to come across people (mostly of the self-proclaimed left) who clearly saw the problem even before Gamergate Changed Everything™ by first inventing fascism:

Flavia Dzodan wrote a piece for Tiger Beatdown dedicated to skewering the “toxic” nature of “the collective dance commonly known in blogging as the ‘call outs.’”  The problem with call-out culture, she wrote, is that it “has developed as a tool to legitimize aggression and rhetoric [sic] violence.”

For while, “on the surface,” call-outs are  “seemingly positive” and “done ‘for good,’” they are not, she suggested, mere instruments of justice. Rather, they need to be understood in the context of a culture in thrall to the cruel theatre of reality television, as a “performative” spectacle of ritual blood-letting fashioned “for an audience” and intended “more often that not … to make the one initiating the call out feel good, more righteous, more indignant, a ‘better person’.”

Attacking the person rather than the action

This is spectacularly common, and, I suspect, exacerbated by the rigid sediment of a structural analysis which collapses social identity and political position. From there, it’s a short walk to, ‘They said a fillintheblank-ist thing because people like them are fillintheblank-ists.”

But things are not that simple. We all live under conditions of structural domination. Every one of us has internalized views and assumptions that serve to perpetuate that system. That someone said something which represents, say, a damaging exclusion, doesn’t tell you they are a vile bigot in the essence of their being, or that they are a dues-paying agent of the kyriarchy.  And it is, at best, uncharitable to suggest that it does. And that goes doubly for extrapolating directing from a particular event to a totalizing dismissal ending in –phobe.[5]

Both these types of misrepresentation fall squarely under the rubric of ‘engaging in bad faith.’ It is true that intention isn’t magic. At least, it is true that whether I intended to say a fillintheblank-ist thing doesn’t determine whether it is fillintheblank-ist  (although it’s not clear that intensity of pile-on is what determines it either). But it is one thing to argue that a specific intention does not define a particular act, and quite another to refuse to credit the person you are addressing with good intention in general.

What concerns me is that the hand-waving of unjust representation takes place against a background assumption that certain people – by virtue of their (often reductively ascribed) social privilege and/or platform – are incapable of a genuine concern with justice[6], and as such, don’t deserve to be treated justly. Not only is this a bleak, and indeed, thoroughly neo-liberal,[7] view of human nature, it presents us with something of a paradox.

On the one hand, the call-out justifies itself by posing as an educative intervention performed in good faith. (And, just to be abundantly clear, I have seen examples where it is just that.) On the other, the tendency to misrepresent people, and invoke totalizing slurs – often accompanied by violent invective – suggests that there is, actually, no assumption of good faith on the part of the call-outers.

And, to return to our starting point, this raises a question about the call-out’s purported function. Because why on earth would you bother telling someone they have done something harmful, if you are proceeding from the assumptions that people-like-them don’t care about doing harm?

More than one answer presents itself, but Flavia Dzodan’s observations about performativity are pertinent to several of them. Yes, there are examples of good-faith call-outs which are genuinely intended to challenge or inform, but they are relatively rare. More often than not, the call-out is performed for an audience, and is undertaken for the benefit of the person or persons performing it.

As such, it may serve several functions. It demonstrates your political credentials, and (for many white women) launders your privilege. It raises your profile, and nets you allies and followers. It bestows the sweet sense of having-right on your side, of bravely battling against the massed forces of domination and injustice. And, perhaps above all – it’s a great way of dumping all your aggression, and usefully comes with a political narrative that exculpates you from taking any responsibility for that.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

And it’s not OK for several reasons. It’s not OK because the person you are raging at is not the source of your oppression. Your oppression is systemic, and individuals are, at worst, symptoms, and indeed, frequently being used as proxies for that system. When a woman is expected to gracefully absorb a long stream of invective, she is being asked to do so, not as a person but as a cipher.

Because of a tweet, or a misplaced phrase, because she asked the wrong person the wrong question, or tried to defend someone, or said something flippant, or challenged the political point of one white-woman calling another white-woman ‘scum,’ she is summarily elected as the representative of an entire structure of domination. She is no longer herself, but today’s chosen instantiation of white-cis-liberal-middle-class-capitalist-colonial-ableist-whorephobic-(and probably, indeed, patriarchal)-supremacy. [9]

Not only is this monolithic system not actually a monolith – another representational error because it is also, well, intersecting – but deciding you are divine violence, and taking it upon yourself to deliver rhetorical punishment to someone on the basis that they are this system, is dehumanization and exemplary bad-faith. And the recent prevalence of tweets mocking women’s ‘sadfeelz’ and ‘White Tears’™ makes it pretty apparent that dehumanizing white feminist women because they have been deemed emissaries of evil is now considered at the very least acceptable, and indeed, by some, a thoroughgoing act of justice.

But people are not structures. They might say things that support structures, and they may well, often by accident rather than design, benefit from how those structures work. And that should, indeed, must, be incessantly critiqued. But individual people – with all their mess, and nuance, and strength, and vulnerability – are not structures. And even if left-wing-white-feminist women really were the best possible proxy for patriarchal-colonial-capitalist-white-supremacist domination, taking to Twitter to lob rhetorical Molotov cocktails at them is not smashing the kyriarchy, it’s being verbally violent to another person.

And it is a “toxic and destructive phenomenon” that seems impossible to resist. As Dzodan noted, call-out culture is “insidious” because “who would dare to say something…when it is supposedly done against oppression?” As was evident from responses to the Goldberg piece, if the call-out is a tool of social justice, then anyone who questions it can only be concerned with strengthening the status quo. And so, shielded by this impervious defense, the call-out adopts a pose of ethical invulnerability, and is free to carry out its righteous work.

The flaw in this defense is, however, that while the call-out claims to work for justice, it is often, in itself, unjust. And while it styles itself an intervention aimed at education, and claims to have engaged its interlocutor in good faith, in many ways, as I have shown, this is a lie. The disquiet many feminists express towards the call out, is animated, not by their desire to keep a grip on power, but by their frustration at repeatedly engaging in an environment pervaded by bad faith. And by the futility of trying to resist.

Because the call-out is a vicious circle. It selects its target as a proxy of ‘The Oppressor,’ and when its bad-faith overture is greeted as precisely what it is, it parades this lack of receptivity as evidence of the very pre-supposition with which it started. It is a snare. A game of ‘Gotcha!’ A way of whipping-up endless vortices of self-perpetuating outrage. It is poisonous, and corrosive, and damaging, both to individuals and to the very possibility of genuine political communication across our differences.

And what it isn’t – when it piles into an encounter, stoked by certainty and suppositions while dressed up, disingenuously, in the garb of good faith, careless, and indeed, often, reveling, in any harm that it might do – is an instrument of justice.

the injunction against tone-policing derives from an important insight. People who experience oppression are angry, and their anger is both legitimate and politically important. Moreover, they are often subject to cultural stereotypes which serve to restrict their ability to assume and express that anger, and in the interests of justice, this needs to be resisted.

At some point however, the tone argument assumed a law-like status which, Cross writes, can “be waved at will in any discussion to absolve one of responsibility” and contributes to what she beautifully describes as “a rapidly oxidizing corrosion” of political discourse.  The ethics of expressing anger are, indeed, challenging. On the one hand it is – often literally – vital, to affirm that anger is legitimate, and recognize that people’s wellbeing and survival depends on channeling it away from themselves and towards the structures of their oppression. But it doesn’t follow from this that every expression of legitimate anger is itself legitimate.

This erasure of ethics by politics is well illustrated in Kenzo Shibata’s response to Goldberg. She writes, “The real irony I read in her piece is that Goldberg, using her mainstream-ish platform, labels women without a major platform as “bullies.’ Bullying requires punching-down.” This argument relies on the conflation of oppression (structural/political) with bullying (interpersonal/ethical). It is not, by definition possible for a person with less structural power to oppress someone with more structural power – because the power determining their relation is systemic not personal, and cannot be changed within any given encounter, although it make be invoked or off-set. But structural power is not the only type of power. In an interpersonal encounter, power may also be distributed by the willingness or ability of one party to use some type of rhetorical, psychological or physical violence against another. This is what is involved in bullying and/or abuse. It may well be true that it is easier for people with more structural power to bully people with less structural power (as they then have both structural and interpersonal violence at their command), but it is not true that is impossible for someone with less structural power to bully someone with more. As Flavia Dzodan notes, “What is rarely pointed out is that a person can be at once oppressed and an abuser.” A far more honest way of having this conversation would be to ask the question, ‘is it politically justified for people with less structural power to invoke some form of interpersonal violence against people with more structural power?’ That is something we can talk – and may very well disagree – about. But to pretend there is no genuine ethical question here is a smokescreen.

This is the end-point of a too-rigid application of identity politics. Yes, my social position and lived experience are likely to significantly inflect my political understanding, but it does not determine it. People are capable of acts of imagination and empathy, and only a social-Darwinist-come-neo-classical economist would seriously argue that all human beings act only out of brutal self-interest.

Secondly, anyone who criticizes the practices of Intersectional Feminism and happens to be white, is deemed, by default, a ‘white feminist,’ without any knowledge of their social position or views. There is a totalitarian logic at work here: 1. People’s views are entirely determined by their social position. 2. IF represents ‘the oppressed’ and white feminism represents ‘the oppressor’. 3. Your social position can therefore be deduced from whether you espouse or criticize the beliefs and the practices of intersectional feminism 4. The best way to demonstrate you are not ‘the oppressor’ (perhaps the only way if you’re white) is to regularly denounce and attack people identified as being so. 5. If you think that’s kind of shitty, it’s because you are the oppressor.

Hence, by writing this piece, I become a de facto ‘white feminist’ – even though I am a Marxist-anarchist who thinks Sheryl Sandberg sucks. Indeed, as tends to be a problem with excessively rigid identity-politics, Twitter intersectionality functions with an incredibly reductive account of the relationship between social position and political principle (Marx, Engels, Lenin and Guevara were middle-class, people!), and also, a very reductive vision of its ‘other,’ having, as far as I can tell, no account of the mechanism of kyriarchy beyond amorphous ‘domination’. The fact of this imprecision, and the rapidity and vehemence with which the label ‘white feminist’ – and its homonyms – are dispensed, raises the suspicion that, as a political force, twitter feminism is above all animated by the impulse to expel negativity onto its other. For all its laudable political principles, in practice, intersectional feminism is as ‘you’re either with us or against us’ as neo-conservatism.

[close]

Look at this bitch caping for white supremacy

[NekoFever]

Is Kyuuji okay?

https://twitter.com/IGN/status/1571967625420218371

 

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-edgerunners-just-cements-why-ill-always-prefer-hand-drawn-to-cg-animation.634022/

Still open. 

Is this topic allowed given the rules on the gaming side about topics about Cyberpunk?

Unfortunately not, I think.

Wish that rule would be re-reviewed nowadays.

[Vertigo]

Can anyone tell me why these imbeciles are screeching about this book?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uks-major-teachers-union-magazine-gives-glowing-recommendation-to-a-transphobic-hate-book-for-children.634373/

[wsippel]

I'm so sorry, but I have to do it - for the guests. From back in the day, when Kim Hyung-Tae was Team Bloodlust's art director, lead character designer and animation director:



And to show that he firmly believes in equality:



There's also a funny and weird story about why the Lyn were created, with an equally questionable video by Rendermax to accomplish said story. Spoilers: The Lyn were created because the suits at NCSoft wanted them - Kim Hyung-Tae really didn't.

[Lonewulfeus]

Can anyone tell me why these imbeciles are screeching about this book?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uks-major-teachers-union-magazine-gives-glowing-recommendation-to-a-transphobic-hate-book-for-children.634373/

Pretty sure they think the panel means the idea of the social construct is made up as opposed to the social construct being defined sociologically not biologically.  Maybe?  Who knows.  Most of those poster are probably just nodding along in agreement so they don’t get put on a list to be banned later.  Classic Excelsheet though, post a tweet meant to draw outrage while probably being taken out of context with as little substance as possible.

[benjipwns]

Can anyone tell me why these imbeciles are screeching about this book?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uks-major-teachers-union-magazine-gives-glowing-recommendation-to-a-transphobic-hate-book-for-children.634373/

They believe that your gender does control your personality. Conforming to predominant stereotypes is just proof of your identity. That page is transphobic because it advances the hateful view that shit you made up isn't reality.

[HaughtyFrank]

They're jumping through so many hoops to explain why it's transphobic. Funny how "gender is a social construct" used to be a pro-trans talking point but I guess now it's transphobic?

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uks-major-teachers-union-magazine-gives-glowing-recommendation-to-a-transphobic-hate-book-for-children.634373/#post-93615590

The booklet teaches kids that sex is real and gender identity is made up

It then further links Gender Identity, the core concept of trans rights, to being akin to racism and sexism

That trans people are denying sex and encouraging stereotyping

No it's insinuating that gender as a concept is bigoted aka it's training kids to think of trans people as bigots who encourage sex stereotypes and deny biology

Look it's convuluted because transphobes are 98% brainworms so you need a concussion to decipher it or be too online

They're basically saying stereotypes are bad (a good lesson) and going and that's what trans people do! They stereotype sex with their gender ideology like racists stereotype race

[benjipwns]

They're jumping through so many hoops to explain why it's transphobic. Funny how "gender is a social construct" used to be a pro-trans talking point but I guess now it's transphobic?

The current (for at least the last few years) trans "rights" activist position is that sex is a social construct imposing something false on people and personal gender identity is a biological reality. The former should be denied to exist and the latter should create a duty for everyone else to affirm it continuously.

The Katy Montgomerie in the tweet incelsiorlef posted is a prominent advocate of the view that sex as a concept literally cannot actually exist.

[Potato]

Incelchief talking about brainworms is 


Also, I wonder what will happen to the next person that says "gender is a social construct" now that it's been deemed transphobic?


Where's Kyujjiijigi when you need her?

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/roseanne-barr-returning-to-stand-up-comedy-with-special-for-fox-nation.634382/#post-93613400

i think a lot of classic simpsons writers were pretty moderate and some right-wing too. could be wrong though.

This is the gang of writers who thought 'shemale' jokes were funny and concoted an entire episode where Homer Simpson touched a girl on the ass without her consent and got everyone to agree it wasn't a violation of her personal space.

 

[benjipwns]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/roseanne-barr-returning-to-stand-up-comedy-with-special-for-fox-nation.634382/#post-93613400

i think a lot of classic simpsons writers were pretty moderate and some right-wing too. could be wrong though.

This is the gang of writers who thought 'shemale' jokes were funny and concoted an entire episode where Homer Simpson touched a girl on the ass without her consent and got everyone to agree it wasn't a violation of her personal space.

Dude saw this report and believed it:

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/roseanne-barr-returning-to-stand-up-comedy-with-special-for-fox-nation.634382/page-2#post-93619130

As we can clearly see, there is no ass contact here.

by this logic you could excuse him touching anything stuck to her ass, including her jeans.

[HaughtyFrank]

Finally we're taking Homer Simpson to task

[Boredfrom]

This is the gang of writers who thought 'shemale' jokes were funny and concoted an entire episode where Homer Simpson touched a girl on the ass without her consent and got everyone to agree it wasn't a violation of her personal space.

 

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THIS INSANITY,  BDUBS? A MAN NEEDS TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE!

[benjipwns]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/roseanne-barr-returning-to-stand-up-comedy-with-special-for-fox-nation.634382/page-2#post-93619130

I don’t think I’ve ever once heard in my nearly 30 years of life, a funny right wing person. Conservatives are inherently humour vacuums.

That's because you have to have empathy to be a good comedian.

I think the safer thing to say is that Republican humor is inherently not funny because it's all about punching down. There have absolutely been people who are right of center who can write funny comedy, but comedy ABOUT being a Republican just flat-out doesn't work.

A lot of comedy is based in subversion of expectations in some way. Whether it's bring up thoughts that people may have had but hadn't heard expressed, whether it's presenting an idea that someone hasn't heard, maybe it's just having events not play out the way that you thought they would.

Iconoclastic or anti-authoritarian perspectives are natural fits for comedy because they provide a subversive mindset of some sort. They're perspectives based on questioning or challenging some sort of norm. If you have an establishment outlook and you're regurgitating that, it's harder to find a way to be unexpected because even if it's inoffensive it's going to be all a bunch of stuff that the audience has heard before and it takes more effort to package them in a way that has impact.

It's kind of why there's such a strong sentiment that Family Circus or Garfield suck while The Far Side is great. None of them generally feel like they have strong visible leanings, but The Far Side constantly catches their viewers off-guard while Family Circus and Garfield almost never will.

I remember watching a video about how conservatives aren't funny, and how back in the day with those redneck humor kings of comedy guys, they actually were and it has to do with right wing views have gotten more extreme over the years. Hell they use to share left wing views back then

Yeah, it's an interesting combo of "back then certain problematic views and jokes were okay to most people" as well as the fact that even if some of those guys didn't write good COMEDY, they themselves were "funny people" meaning it didn't really matter what the jokes were, if they just said some stuff and "acted funny" people would laugh.

But you're right that if you were to spreadsheet all the views and positions they held on certain things there would be way more overlap with even today's leftists than today's "conservative" comedians.

[link to one and a half hour YouTube video from that one totally unfunny and stupid guy whose "cancel culture does not exist" video they always post]

Good explaination of why conservatives are not funny.

[Straight Edge]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/doctor-warns-against-cooking-chicken-in-nyquil-trend.634331/

This is how the black community ensures their poultry is free from sabotage by white butchers.

[Propagandhim]

A lot of comedy is based in subversion of expectations in some way.

Iconoclastic or anti-authoritarian perspectives are natural fits for comedy because they provide a subversive mindset of some sort.

They're perspectives based on questioning or challenging some sort of norm.

If you have an establishment outlook and you're regurgitating that, it's harder to find a way to be unexpected because even if it's inoffensive it's going to be all a bunch of stuff that the audience has heard before and it takes more effort to package them in a way that has impact.

I don't remember comedians having lists of shit that were off-limits to even speak about, let alone things as benign as Cyber Punk and Joe Rogan or banning people for stepping 1 beat out of cadence with everyone else.   You're the opposite of iconoclasts.   

[benjipwns]

L Thammy is getting dangerously close to arguing that Bill Maher is a comedian even though PlanetSmasher debunked that earlier by noting that Bill Maher refuses to conform to the dominant culture of the moment making him a dishonest fraud.

[Uncle]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uks-major-teachers-union-magazine-gives-glowing-recommendation-to-a-transphobic-hate-book-for-children.634373/#post-93615590

The booklet teaches kids that sex is real and gender identity is made up

It then further links Gender Identity, the core concept of trans rights, to being akin to racism and sexism

That trans people are denying sex and encouraging stereotyping

No it's insinuating that gender as a concept is bigoted aka it's training kids to think of trans people as bigots who encourage sex stereotypes and deny biology

Look it's convuluted because transphobes are 98% brainworms so you need a concussion to decipher it or be too online

They're basically saying stereotypes are bad (a good lesson) and going and that's what trans people do! They stereotype sex with their gender ideology like racists stereotype race

but...this is literally what non binary is??

it's saying "I don't fit into these boxes so I've designed a new box just for me that rejects both and incorporates only how I personally feel"

you're not tapping into a universal constant, like discovering a molecule, factual and unassailable

 

[Potato]

If there's no such thing as a funny right wing comedian, then why are all the comedians banned from Reeeeesetera for being "right wing chuds" all so fucking funny?

[Potato]

But seriously, comedy is generally really funny when someone is making jokes at the expense of people who take themselves far too seriously. Hence why jokes about "the left" are always hilarious, just like jokes about conservative idiots are also funny as fuck.


What's even funnier is when those people who are the subject of the joke get offended and try to retort.

[benjipwns]

It's also funny when they try to argue something isn't funny because they can't conceive of a situation where an individual from a "privileged" group can also be oppressed by individuals from a "marginalized" group or that individuals can be oppressed by other members of the same group.

There can only be good progressive humor from the right side of history that helps advance that historically guaranteed triumph and bad fascist humor that's stochastic terrorism against the eventual victors of history.

[Potato]

It's also funny when they try to argue something isn't funny because they can't conceive of a situation where an individual from a "privileged" group can also be oppressed by individuals from a "marginalized" group or that individuals can be oppressed by other members of the same group.

There can only be good progressive humor from the right side of history that helps advance that historically guaranteed triumph and bad fascist humor that's stochastic terrorism against the eventual victors of history.

I see your colonialist language and condemn you Benjichudd

[benjipwns]

I typed what you're suggesting into Twitter and got this:
https://twitter.com/LeftHandedLarue/status/1500874417705943042

[Uncle]

I typed what you're suggesting into Twitter and got this:
https://twitter.com/LeftHandedLarue/status/1500874417705943042

ran into a twitter thread earlier where people were getting up in arms because to kill a mockingbird was being "banned" in a school district (taken off reading lists, so either banned or not depending on if you agree with the decision)

people were jumping to the conclusion that this was by qanon alt right chud racists who are uncomfortable being faced with how racist the nation used to be, and/or didn't like the idea of a white man going out of his way to help a black man

instead the book was banned due to leftist concerns that it demonstrates the harmful white savior trope, and is also a book written by a white person about the Black perspective (as if they would be able to represent the situation accurately)

thread got quiet pretty quick

[benjipwns]

To Kill A Mockingbird has been a long time social justice target, was one of the ones Fox News always got outrage minutes out of when California or whoever was "banning" it or similar, I'm endlessly fascinated by how many of the "activists" on Twitter (many with blue checks) seem to lack knowledge about anything they did not personally participate in. (And many times things they did.)

[clothedmacuser]

But seriously, comedy is generally really funny when someone is making jokes at the expense of people who take themselves far too seriously. Hence why jokes about "the left" are always hilarious, just like jokes about conservative idiots are also funny as fuck.


What's even funnier is when those people who are the subject of the joke get offended and try to retort.

That is the transition humor has taken in the past 15 years. It's in a very strange and unfunny place.

They don't teach this in Comedy School (Class of '98) but it started 1910's Vaudeville>Movie vaudeville>Catskills Borscht Belt and that crap managed to survive till Johnny Carson> 60's 70's you had Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.  And that takes us to the 80's.

Being transgressive then was Andrew Dice Grey saying Borscht Belt dirty limericks but edgy?  Haha, a lesbian rhyme.  Comedy went from jokes you would tell to observations.  Alt Comedy of the 90's.  Gen-X'ers pointing out how stupid shit is. 

Brick wall comedy



After that it got more personal.  Comics would talk about how 9/11 hit them (David Cross) and what shit we were in.  From Observational to personal. Tig Notaro (amazing at that type of comedy) and others who would just seem to wander on stage and tell you about their life. A Very personal comedy.  They would share events they went through and pain they've seen.  These deep truths and personal comics had a thing to share and they were open and honest and yet funny.  Louis C.K. was a master at sharing deep embarrassing events that we all shamefully share and turning it into humor.

But then a Gen of comics saw that and they think that's the point of comedy.  To tell your truth and that's good enough.   You are a gay, muslim, with ASL and blind but you are telling Borscht Belt jokes. Now comedy is about having that political edge.  You don't have to be funny or make an observation if the crowd applauses. 

Bill Maher did this but he did it as a comic.  Now you have people following that concept thinking the applause is the point. 

Hey, I'm pro-choice! 



I share similar political opinions so I am smart like you! applaud!  Clap.  But is there anything funny?  Do you want to be funny or do you want to earn claps? 

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/doctor-warns-against-cooking-chicken-in-nyquil-trend.634331/

This is how the black community ensures their poultry is free from sabotage by white butchers.

Lol why did dumbninja request to lock it

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/do-you-know-any-self-proclaimed-nice-guys%E2%84%A2-in-real-life.634580/

Knew a guy like that when I was studying. He was usually talking about why he cant get a gf, he is so nice, always holds the door for women etc.
And then in private chats went about how women only dates assholes.
Also he didnt really do anything to actually meet women and was more of a shut-in.

Do you guys know any people like that?

[Potato]

I typed what you're suggesting into Twitter and got this:
https://twitter.com/LeftHandedLarue/status/1500874417705943042

I feel personally attacked by that tweet

[Potato]

I typed what you're suggesting into Twitter and got this:
https://twitter.com/LeftHandedLarue/status/1500874417705943042

ran into a twitter thread earlier where people were getting up in arms because to kill a mockingbird was being "banned" in a school district (taken off reading lists, so either banned or not depending on if you agree with the decision)

people were jumping to the conclusion that this was by qanon alt right chud racists who are uncomfortable being faced with how racist the nation used to be, and/or didn't like the idea of a white man going out of his way to help a black man

instead the book was banned due to leftist concerns that it demonstrates the harmful white savior trope, and is also a book written by a white person about the Black perspective (as if they would be able to represent the situation accurately)

thread got quiet pretty quick

Someone post it at Reeeeesetera

[Snoopycat_]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/do-you-know-any-self-proclaimed-nice-guys%E2%84%A2-in-real-life.634580/
Knew a guy like that when I was studying. He was usually talking about why he cant get a gf, he is so nice, always holds the door for women etc.
And then in private chats went about how women only dates assholes.
Also he didnt really do anything to actually meet women and was more of a shut-in.

Do you guys know any people like that?

I've said it before, there are no mirrors in Ree's house

[Uncle]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uks-major-teachers-union-magazine-gives-glowing-recommendation-to-a-transphobic-hate-book-for-children.634373/#post-93615590

The booklet teaches kids that sex is real and gender identity is made up

It then further links Gender Identity, the core concept of trans rights, to being akin to racism and sexism

That trans people are denying sex and encouraging stereotyping

No it's insinuating that gender as a concept is bigoted aka it's training kids to think of trans people as bigots who encourage sex stereotypes and deny biology

Look it's convuluted because transphobes are 98% brainworms so you need a concussion to decipher it or be too online

They're basically saying stereotypes are bad (a good lesson) and going and that's what trans people do! They stereotype sex with their gender ideology like racists stereotype race

but...this is literally what non binary is??

it's saying "I don't fit into these boxes so I've designed a new box just for me that rejects both and incorporates only how I personally feel"

you're not tapping into a universal constant, like discovering a molecule, factual and unassailable

 

sorry I woke up and I'm still questioning this

what is their response to shit like this?

https://historydaily.org/dresses-for-boys-and-girls

A Time When Boys Wore Pink and Girls Wore Blue - And Both Wore Dresses

Just before the 1920s, pink and blue started to become associated with gender - pink was considered suitable for boys while blue was suitable for girls. This was something new, as before, all children - regardless of gender - would wear pink, blue or white.

It was not until just prior to WWI that colors were promoted as gender signifiers. An early reference of this new gender color identification appeared in the June 1918 trade publication by Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department :

"The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink , being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."

is it their argument that during this time, literally all boys felt uncomfortable and dysphoric, until blue jeans were created?

I mean if we're hardwired in the brain to like pink pretty things or blue manly things and this isn't just made up societal bullshit we're taught to buy into

Your misunderstanding is intentional, TERFs try to twist gender expression into something it's not so it sounds like something you would agree with.

reminds me of "reality has a liberal bias"

[SmokyDave]

When I realised that agender was a transphobic trans identity, I realised this isn’t about truth or learning. Nowadays I just try and not be a dick, but I can’t pretend to full-on respect all the thought behind contemporary identity.

I feel like ‘not being a dick’ is plenty enough. I don’t need to understand you or validate you, I just need to not punch you in the throat when you annoy me.

[NekoFever]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/moron-ic-amongst-other-words-is-ableist-yet-i-read-it-every-day-including-here-and-it-frustrates-me-deeply.634601/

                               Dismissing concerns?
                            /
 

[Switters]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/moron-ic-amongst-other-words-is-ableist-yet-i-read-it-every-day-including-here-and-it-frustrates-me-deeply.634601/

                               Dismissing concerns?
                            /
 

I was born a moron so this hits especially hard whenever people say it. I feel like there's a lot of moron erasure in media and the only place that I feel safe and represented is thebore.com.

Why can't Nintendo put a moron in smash? Representation matters.

[Snoopycat_]

First, I want to apologize to the team in charge and to the posters for misusing the platform. Feel free to close the thread if needed.

Next, the request itself. I have been looking for a way to contact the actress featured in the music video of the song 'Moments in Love' that takes part to this enigmatic ice skating contest. Why? It's nothing special, I just want to tell her that I really appreciated her presence on screen and that the kid in me could not forget her, even after 35 years.

Alright, this comes out weirder that intended but it's a sincere demand. I took the liberty to contact Anthony van den Ende who was the film maker in charge of the music video but even he could not tell me the name of the lady. He was very kind though.

So, I resort to commit the ultimate sin of asking strangers about a personal demand. A part in me is baffled at the idea that I am actually doing this but, hey, we have already done worse, haven't we.

Thanks a ton in advance.

Totally normal

https://www.resetera.com/threads/oh-dammit-ill-ask-you-to-do-me-favour-era.634622/

[Uncle]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/moron-ic-amongst-other-words-is-ableist-yet-i-read-it-every-day-including-here-and-it-frustrates-me-deeply.634601/

                               Dismissing concerns?
                            /
 

I was born a moron so this hits especially hard whenever people say it. I feel like there's a lot of moron erasure in media and the only place that I feel safe and represented is thebore.com.

Why can't Nintendo put a moron in smash? Representation matters.

trey parker and matt stone's musical about it was psychological terrorism on many who can't help the way they were raised

[Uncle]

When I realised that agender was a transphobic trans identity, I realised this isn’t about truth or learning. Nowadays I just try and not be a dick, but I can’t pretend to full-on respect all the thought behind contemporary identity.

I feel like ‘not being a dick’ is plenty enough. I don’t need to understand you or validate you, I just need to not punch you in the throat when you annoy me.

only a cis white male would base their worldview on a comic book movie about a rich man beating up the mentally ill

[Boredfrom]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/mass-protests-have-erupted-in-iran-over-the-death-of-mahsa-amini.634367/

Guess the poster currently missing in this thread.

Bonus, guess the poster trying to make a “gotcha” point and failing because she is an ignorant idiot.

[Sideshow Raheem]

The discourse about STD is getting weird. A few years ago RE or old Gaf were claiming that getting HIV was not a big deal and was bigotry claiming otherwise.

I get it in the sense on how manipulative was the great AIDS scare from the 90’s, but pretending that this stuff is not a big deal not blows my mind.

They advertise HIV suppressing drugs on TV, and proclaim your viral count is so low on the drug HIV can't be transmitted sexually. Nothing about donating blood, however.

Am glad people are getting treatment, but I get the sense this cavalier attitude is going to hurt someone very badly.

[joeboy101]

So, the Edgerunner thread is still open and going with over 200 posts! Why won’t mods do their job?!?

Also, this mf’er with the blatant derail attempt that goes totally unbitten:

So how transphobic is it on a scale from 0 to Cyberpunk2077? We drinkin' Chromanticore?

 

[Uncle]

The discourse about STD is getting weird. A few years ago RE or old Gaf were claiming that getting HIV was not a big deal and was bigotry claiming otherwise.

I get it in the sense on how manipulative was the great AIDS scare from the 90’s, but pretending that this stuff is not a big deal not blows my mind.

They advertise HIV suppressing drugs on TV, and proclaim your viral count is so low on the drug HIV can't be transmitted sexually. Nothing about donating blood, however.

Am glad people are getting treatment, but I get the sense this cavalier attitude is going to hurt someone very badly.

it's like when people think they can drink as much diet coke as they want because it's labeled diet

[Taco Bell Tower]

[remy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/moron-ic-amongst-other-words-is-ableist-yet-i-read-it-every-day-including-here-and-it-frustrates-me-deeply.634601/

                               Dismissing concerns?
                            /
 

I was born a moron so this hits especially hard whenever people say it. I feel like there's a lot of moron erasure in media and the only place that I feel safe and represented is thebore.com.

Why can't Nintendo put a moron in smash? Representation matters.

well, rex shows up in pyras taunt

[HaughtyFrank]

So, the Edgerunner thread is still open and going with over 200 posts! Why won’t mods do their job?!?

Also, this mf’er with the blatant derail attempt that goes totally unbitten:

So how transphobic is it on a scale from 0 to Cyberpunk2077? We drinkin' Chromanticore?

 

If someone were to answer that there aren't any trans characters in the anime at all, would that be a positive or make the anime transphobic 

Edit: Top of the page cyberpunk

 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

https://twitter.com/Irine_Meier/status/1572267492789358592

[close]

[BIONIC]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/mass-protests-have-erupted-in-iran-over-the-death-of-mahsa-amini.634367/page-2#post-93650063

The Arab Spring has come to Iran....Finally.

When you wanna sound woke, but end up being racist 

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/twitch-has-banned-major-gambling-sites-slots-roulette-or-dice-games-the-likes-of-which-include-sites-like-stake-and-more-starts-oct-18.634466/#post-93622370

User Banned (1 Month): Sexist comment. Post reverted for context

Can they ban the half-naked women on there now?

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/twitch-streamers-mizkif-maya-accused-of-covering-up-their-friend-crazyslick-sexually-assaulting-another-streamer-crazyslick-currently-mia.634157/#post-93582212

User Banned (2 Weeks): Misogynistic Slur

Some famous Twitch streamers are self obsessed, selfish, greedy cunts even the apparent “wholesome” ones.

Scumbags. They’ll get away with it though because they’re so popular and generate so much revenue for Amazon.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/twitch-streamers-mizkif-maya-accused-of-covering-up-their-friend-crazyslick-sexually-assaulting-another-streamer-crazyslick-currently-mia.634157/page-3#post-93600569

User Banned (1 week): Inflammatory false comparison

There probably are but the point is you dont actually know any of these people personally.

If someone was generalizing for a race of people or a country you wouldn't make this argument. Generalizing is still generalizing.