The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Wow, all these posts and only one who acknowledged anything I had to say? I am disappoint.



Lith: "He was edited out of that scene in reairings due to death threats, and they were banned by the network from including him again due to the amount of death threats. Does it ever suck to be so wrong?"

Umm, are you suggesting there wasn't a dramatic shift in how the media treated depictions of Mohammed after cartoonists got killed? I'm not saying I'm OK with the media censoring after the fact, but the fact is a hugely popular TV program was able to show a depiction of Mohammed and not a jimmy was rustled until it became such a hot-button issue. In other words, because it WASN'T done as a "Fuck you, I have a right to do this and you can't stop me with your threats" act, it wasn't perceived as one and there was no extreme reaction.

Lith: "Also, a Hitler mustache on a medieval slave trading, tyrant, rapist--whose ideology, for some reason, is still worshiped today--seems like contextual criticism. I know, I know Tan--for you, proclaiming a fucking video game should be criticized because it compels players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from killing virtual NPCs. But some guy that actually wrote rules on how to capture and fuck women, and then give them to immediate family when you're bored? Naa, he doesn't really need to be criticized; that's just being belligerent? AMIRITE?"

Nice to see you back to your dishonest ways again. Why are you putting words in my mouth and trying to remove what I said from the context it was delivered and misrepresenting it within a new context I never addressed?

When did I say Mohammed shouldn't be criticized? Please quote me. My whole point is that being an asshole for the exclusive purpose of pissing someone off has never had and will never have anything but negative effects. Holding a "Draw Mohammed" context is a "Fuck you" to Muslims and that makes it a stupid, counterproductive act. Yes, it's legal. Yes, it's protected by the constitution. But it's also a pointless act designed to provoke and anger.

And since you went off on tangent, allow me to correct you: Video games deserve to be criticized because they are an art form that has matured tremendously over the years and continues to mature. People can choose to criticize them from whatever perspective they like, with a focus on whatever aspects they choose. If you think someone's criticism is inaccurate or unfair, you can offer a counter-point explaining where you think they went wrong (many have done this beautifully), you can consider them a waste of your time and deprive them of any more of your attention (an entirely reasonable reaction that would have saved a lot of butthurt had more people chosen it), or you can make baseless, inflammatory personal attacks that don't even address what was being said (a VERY popular choice that led to an unnecessary and completely counterproductive "us vs. them" polarization of a topic that NEEDED to be addressed with more nuance).

Interestingly, the drawing Mohammed issue and the Sarkeesian issue share a common trait: Both have prompted people to defend "acting like an asshole" as a productive and even NECESSARY way to deal with the "problem" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Really, Quaid? You're shocked that an adult believes being an asshole is counterproductive? What's your counter-point, then? When has intentionally pissing people off produced positive results?

Neranja: "Boiling it down it's a lot like high school bullying, and all about bossing people around and telling them what to do and think. But nobody wants to admit to be a bully, and so they have to justify it to themselves by "contributing to a greater good." That is also why you ever so often see those "the ends justify the means" type of arguments from them. They really believe that shit, because otherwise they would have to admit to themselves they are horrible people no one wants to have around in their life."

Funny this is pretty much EXACTLY what I'm criticizing the "Sometimes it's NECESSARY to be an asshole" people for. Unfortunately, people tend to have a lot of difficulty recognizing that behavior when it's coming from their "side".

Mist: "I just posted it as the perfect illustration of Poe's Law, but yes, it is in fact satire."

THAT'S "the perfect illustration of Poe's law"? Why is it that 9 out of 10 things that provoke a "Poe's law!" reaction are clearly and obviously satire to anyone who doesn't assume the worst in other people?

Come the fuck on:

"It?s important that our little dirtbag grows up with a solid understanding of our ideals, which include hanging out at Hot Topic but not buying anything, and suggestively licking at strangers across a crowded Applebee?s."

If anybody reads this and even has to consider the possibility that it's sincere, they need their fucking head examined.

I think we would be better off with a sjw genocide than a muslim one. The results and effect on society would be arguably better.