Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

Screamfeeder · Mar 19, 2018

fanaskin said:
Usually the point is to stop thinking abstractly, so you clear your mind and use your senses, if i'm on a hallucinogen and alone often I try to practice creating images out of phosphenes when you close your eyes. If i'm with people usually i'm trying to yuck it up with the people there.

Cool.

Tanoomba · Mar 19, 2018

fanaskin said:
third wave feminism which incorporates internationality and post modernism, go look at gender studies on college campuses they'll say the same things. she preaches it to whomever will listen. that was easy.

Feminism, even third-wave feminism, even intersectional third-wave feminism, isn't inherently harmful. You also haven't yet shown how Sark is post-modernist (it's certainly not a given). Heck, after all these posts you still can't seem to differentiate between something being harmful and something having the potential to be used for harm. Why didn't you answer my question about gun owners?

Again (again, again, again, again), can you quote her saying something you think is inherently harmful? Do you believe expressing concerns about how women are portrayed in media is inherently harmful? Do you believe suggesting that creators of media use the imaginative potential of their medium instead of relying on dated clichés is inherently harmful? Do you believe taking a stance against the very harassment you were personally excessively targeted by is inherently harmful?

You're arguing as though you've never heard Sarkeesian speak, but you're terrified of what you think she represents. Your argument is (and I say this with zero exaggeration or hyperbole) "She is X, and X can theoretically be linked to Y, and Noam Chomsky explained how Y can potentially cause harm, therefore she causes harm." This is not a logical stance by any means.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

I guess there's alot of stars at night, so you think about the heavens and shit.

Tanoomba said:
Feminism, even third-wave feminism, even intersectional third-wave feminism, isn't inherently harmful.

Sure it is, it's illogical nonsense

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

Chomsky pointed out how it was illogical nonsense that caused real world harm, you keep ignoring that and sticking your fingers in your ears denying that.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

Tanoomba said:
You're arguing as though you've never heard Sarkeesian speak, but you're terrified of what you think she represents.

No tardnoob, i've probably listened to her more than you, i just add in context and don't repeat what she says unquestioningly which is what you do.

DickTrickle · Mar 19, 2018

Wouldn't it be easier to just use her words against her in your critique if you've listened to her that much?

Screamfeeder · Mar 19, 2018

Wait...fana

What hallucinogenics?

Tanoomba · Mar 19, 2018

fanaskin said:
Sure it is, it's illogical nonsense

Illogical nonsense isn't inherently harmful. Heck, can you find me something Sark said that you consider "illogical nonsense"?

fanaskin said:
Chomsky pointed out how it was illogical nonsense that caused real world harm, you keep ignoring that and sticking your fingers in your ears denying that.

I didn't ignore anything. He was talking about how post-modernism can be used to ignore facts (something you have PROVABLY done on multiple occasions, lest you forget). He didn't say post-modernism is inherently harmful, he didn't say post-modernists are inherently harmful, and he certainly didn't say that Sarkeesian is a post-modernist.

Again (again, again...), "X can be used in a harmful way" DOES NOT EQUAL "X is harmful".

fanaskin said:
No tardnoob, i've probably listened to her more than you, i just add in context and don't repeat what she says unquestioningly which is what you do.

I've literally never repeated what she says unquestioningly, and you can't find a single quote where I have. How often are you going to resort to simply making things up about me? Also, I think I found your mistake: You're not supposed to ADD context, you're supposed to consider the context that's ALREADY THERE. When you ADD context, it's YOU that's changing the meaning of what is said and separating it further from the speakers actual intended meaning.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

Tanoomba said:
Illogical nonsense isn't inherently harmful.

I mean sure, if you ignore the machine like production of said ideology to a significant portion of society, then you realize you're using taxpayer dollars to train revolutionaries who believe nonsense, 20+ years of that and you have a real problem on your hands.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

Tanoomba said:
I've literally never repeated what she says unquestioningly

Was she talking about hitman?

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

Tanoomba said:
He didn't say post-modernism is inherently harmful, he didn't say post-modernists are inherently harmful

No he said it was nonsense that rich society can afford and poor society can't, he said it was broadly harmful.

Tanoomba · Mar 19, 2018

fanaskin said:
I mean sure, if you ignore the machine like production of said ideology to a significant portion of society, then you realize you're using taxpayer dollars to train revolutionaries who believe nonsense, 20+ years of that and you have a real problem on your hands.

What?

fanaskin said:
Was she talking about hitman?

Are you willing to consider context? You claim you are but it seems to me your idea of "context" is "stuff other people have said that allows me to justify ridiculous hyperbole".

fanaskin said:
No he said it was nonsense that rich society can afford and poor society can't, he said it was broadly harmful.

Quote him.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

It's actually really comical

gender studies which is mostly BS, was a program created for political reasons and wasn't academically rigoris.

If you ask the question why does gender studies ignores biology and science, it's because it was staffed mostly in 1 shot by grabbing woman from the English department to make their own stuff. That explains the general lack of science and usual focus on language and thought control.

that insane system was scaled up to this

Tanoomba said:
What?

women's studies from inception was a PR stunt that promoted an ideology, it has no interest in science or biology, it just wants to push revolutionary ideology.

If I have the energy maybe i'll detail how government loans and college administrators colluded to steal the wealth and corrupt minds of societies kids.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

Does biology have anything to do with gender differences tanoomba? Anything at all mind you.

DickTrickle · Mar 19, 2018

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

DickTrickle said:

you're dumb

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

DickTrickle said:

This is a very broad and complex discussion, if you're gonna act like a retard here kindly please fuck off.

fanaskin · Mar 19, 2018

DickTrickle said:

This is how dumb you are, I stated feminism has become anti science and we're discussing the origins of that, if you're too retarded to see this is all part of the same conversation there's no helping you, were you dropped on your head as a baby?

DickTrickle · Mar 19, 2018

It was a conversation about Anita and you've yet to even quote her. Why is that so hard?

Also try compiling your thoughts before sperging.

Tanoomba · Mar 19, 2018

fanaskin said:
Does biology have anything to do with gender differences tanoomba? Anything at all mind you.

Of course. Wait, did you find a quote of Sarkeesian claiming otherwise?

Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

The Dirtbag

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

The Dirtbag

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

ジョーディーすれいやー